Sam: >>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Bob> On 9/8/2010 3:12 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > >> It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture > >> models are published as Informational when they're clearly not in > >> the same level of authority as most Informational RFCs. An > >> architecture document is meant to guide future work on standards > >> track RFCs, and has been regarded historically as more or less > >> binding. > > Bob> "...guide future work on standards track RFCs" -- yes. > > Bob> "...historically as more or less binding" -- no. > Bob, this was certainly an issue that came up when I was on the IESG. > At that time, we definitely felt that there were some architectural > decisions that the community as a whole had bought into. We believed > that departing from such a decision was something that the community as > a whole needed to revisit. For example, when a WG was chartered to work > on an architecture after the architecture document was approved, it > seemed fairly clear that the community had expressed a desire to have a > chance to look at that architecture. Other times, however, it seemed to > us that a requirements document or architecture document represented the > thinking within a single working group. There, it didn't seem like > departing from this guidance required as much community review. > > I'm summarizing a fair bit of discussions, but enough different > prospectives and examples were brought into the discussion that I feel > confident that while we don't know how large the sample size was, it was > more than just that IESG who believed there are times when architecture > documents are intended to bind. > > I know I've often found the informational RFC label inadequate to > describe this sort of distinction and found that this distinction is > important to capture. This is one of the reasons that the updated boilerplate indicates whether the document represents IETF consensus. Russ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf