Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06.txt> (Report on the Experiment with IETF Operational Notes (IONs)) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



+1

I also disagree with some of the statements in the proposed text.  I do not think it is worth the effort to come up with consensus text.

Russ


On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Mykyta,
> 
> I think the draft is fine without this addition, which contains some statements
> that I disagree with. I don't think analysis is needed; this all ancient history
> anyway.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 2011-07-13 04:50, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> As Russ agreed to sponsor this document on I-D submission cut-off date,
>> I did make only some minor changed proposed by him during AD
>> evaluation.  However I thought the document would be incomplete without
>> analysis, so after LC I propose to add the following sub-section in the
>> draft:
>> 
>>> 3.4. Analysis and Results
>>> 
>>>   IONs were intended to serve as a means to document issues related to
>>>   procedures used by IETF or other parties, but to be more stable as a
>>>   simple web page and to have a more lightweight procedures for
>>>   approval than Best Current Practice (BCP) or other sort of RFC.  Even
>>>   though such middle-ground approach might be quite useful, it also
>>>   brings a number of complexities and negative effects, which are
>>>   described below.
>>> 
>>>   First of all, IONs were mainly scoped to IETF procedural questions.
>>>   A number of IONs were published defining procedures used by IETF
>>>   community, such as ion-ad-sponsoring.  However, it should be noted
>>>   that the formal procedure of IONs approval, laid out in RFC 4693
>>>   [RFC4693] did not imply community involvement, unlike one for BCP or
>>>   other IETF Stream RFC.  Even though RFC 4693 intended IONs to cover
>>>   issues not sufficient for documenting in BCP, this regulation was
>>>   often overlooked.  This might have resulted in community non-
>>>   acceptance of such procedures, partial or full, if IONs were adopted
>>>   on the persistent basis.
>>> 
>>>   Moreover, as IONs were lower in the hierarchy of IETF documents that
>>>   RFCs, published RFCs may override what mentioned in a particular ION
>>>   (whereas a published RFC may change already established procedures),
>>>   which might result in them not being sufficiently followed, creating
>>>   documentation conflicts.
>>> 
>>>   Several IONS were published that describe the procedures used by IESG
>>>   or its members internally, such as ion-discuss-criteria or ion-tsv-
>>>   alt-cc.  Such material is obviously more appropriate for publication
>>>   as IESG Statements, which are also meant to be quite stable when
>>>   published and are approved at IESG's discretion.
>>> 
>>>   A number of IONs were published covering different IAOC issues.  Such
>>>   IONs included ion-execd-tasks and ion-subpoena.  However, even though
>>>   IAOC works tightly with IETF, they have an ability to publish such
>>>   material on their site - <http://iaoc.ietf.org/>.
>>> 
>>>   A one ION - ion-procdocs - was a reference guide to the IWTF Process
>>>   documents.  An other ION - ion-2026-practice - provided the criticism
>>>      and operational experience on RFC 2026 [RFC2026].  Both this
>>>   documents are fine as web pages, since the material contained in it
>>>   might change quickly and often.
>>> 
>>>   ion-ion-format and ion-ion-store were published for the purpose of
>>>   the IONs series itself and were discarded upon experiment closure.
>>>   They are not analyzed here.
>>> 
>>>   The aforementioned facts claim that IONs were less useful than the
>>>   equivalent information published in other way, and should be
>>>   abandoned, as proposed by Section 4 of RFC 4693 [RFC4693].
>> 
>> In order not to request the 2nd LC after this text is included, I'd like
>> to seek community feedback on it during this Last Call.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>> 
>> 12.07.2011 17:39, The IESG wrote:
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>>> the following document:
>>> - 'Report on the Experiment with IETF Operational Notes (IONs)'
>>>   <draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>>> 
>>> [ . . . ]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]