Hector,
On 2011-08-04 14:35, Hector Santos wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter asked:
>
>> Can you be more specific? Are you talking about
>>
>> a) drafts that appear in the WG with very mature text, so complete
>> the WG progress very quickly?
>>
>> b) drafts that are direct submissions to the IESG, and go through
>> IETF Last Call and IESG review without coming near the WG?
>>
>> c) drafts that are Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,
>> so are only subject to minimal review by the IESG and are not
>> IETF documents at all?
>>
>> And in case a) or b), are you talking about standards track and BCP
>> documents, or about informational or experimental ones?
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> From what I have experienced, it doesn't matter what the fast track
> non-WG RFC status is - any status can have a surprising WG goal changing
> influence.
>
> I don't really see that as the main concern until it is a competing or
> conflictive externally produced RFC, especially if it was originally
> deem out of scope in a WG charter. IMO, in such a case, it should be
> part of a WG charter change and a WG vetting process before it is made
> into an RFC and/or allowed to change the WG goals.
I'm still not getting your point. External events of all kinds can
affect a WG; for example publication of a much better technique in
an academic journal, or publication of a patent that is essential
to the chosen solution. Are you saying that the existing review process
for direct submission or Independent Submission RFCs fails to detect
work that overlaps with WGs?
> I am not an expert with IETF procedures and I don't wish to call that a
> "Loop Hole" but it appears to be one. It seems to me a two-maturity
> level may inadvertently create more of these WG conflicts without the
> proper due diligence to watch for these type of situations.
How? It only concerns documents that have already gone through the
whole process of becoming Proposed Standard; essentially the changes
beyond that point in the standards track should always be quite minor.
> Maybe the experience in the DKIM WG was an exception and not the rule
> typical of a WG, but if was a new reflection of an "IETF change" making
> it more possible to fast track RFCs, the review process needs to take
> into account the consequences it can have in any related WG. Is that a
> time problem? A WG Chair/AD issue? Too much work for the AD reviews?
> Not enough synergism of among all parties? I can't say and quite maybe
> it was just an exceptional experience and not the norm. But I believe a
> watchdog for these type of possibilities will help.
Which is exactly why we do have a review process for non-WG RFCs.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf