Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

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

 



Taking into account the controversy we all are able to observe on the mailing list, I'd like to point out several points.

1) Did the IESG consider processing this as RFC 3933 process experiment? (I actually don't know whether such approach has already been proposed during the discussions, and whether there has been some outcome, so, if this has already been proposed, just re-consider.) I personally see no "consensus" or "rough consensus" for this document being approved as BCP, i. e., on the permanent basis, but as some people claimed that this might be useful, processing the document as Experimental process RFC will allow to make the final judgment based on the actual experience, not the assumptions. As soon as we find out that two-tier maturity levels system works, the BCP will be simple to be written and published; if we reach the agreement that "this is a bad idea", then the proposed experimental change will be rescinded, and the maturity system will be returned to the 2026 model.

2) How do we make the consensus judgment (in this particular case)? As IETF is based on "rough consensus" model, rough consensus may only be claimed if the consensus-qualifier (a WG chair or Sponsoring AD, in case of Individual Submission) reaches the inner conviction that the idea proposed in the document satisfies the community, or at least its predominant part. Since IETF has no formal membership, the "community" size may not be determined precisely, and we take into account those folks who participate in the discussion (who, correspondingly, found themselves interested in the discussed topic and are assumed to be knowledgeable in it) in the WG, or elsewhere. So now, when many of the most experienced and most knowledgeable members of our community claim that the proposed change is not a good idea, or is a bad idea, or there is no actual problem, or there is a problem but its proposed solution isn't fine and has some omissions, or there are a number of other problems which are also to be fixed, or something else, I actually have no idea how the consensus-qualifier (in our case, Sponsoring AD - Jari Arkko) may claim "consensus" or "rough consensus" for, at least, adopting it as BCP. (I'm not following the thread closely, but this is what I see from those messages I eventually read.)

3) Do we actually need to make cosmetic changes to our process documentation? RFC 2026 was published in 1996, and precisely 15 years have passed. RFC 2026 is really morally obsolete, and, in presence of RFC 4844, that defines RFC submission streams, was to be revised closely after it was published. I see a number of drafts proposing revisions of RFC 2026 at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=Internet+Standards+Process&rfcs=on&activeDrafts=on&oldDrafts=on>, but none of them were processed.

BTW, RFC 1310 was published in 1992, RFC 1602 - in 1994, and RFC 2026 - in 1996. I don't believe something happened in 1996 which made the procedures unnecessary to be aligned with the current practice. The only changes made were IPR documents, PS->DS reports reqs, and IESG procedures for review of Independent Submissions and IRTF stream submissions.

More precisely, don't we need to revise RFC 2026 rather than make separate changes to it?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

30.08.2011 23:17, Jari Arkko wrote:
I have reviewed the discussion from the last call on this document.

My conclusion as the sponsoring AD is that we have consensus to move forward. There was clearly a constituency who believed this is a good (albeit small) step forward. A number of other people did not care so much; did not believe there was either harm or benefit. I also saw a couple of opposing opinions, though some of them were more about a desire to do something else than specific objections about this proposal. I will be recommending that the IESG approve the draft.

There were a number of smaller details raised in the discussion. But I did not see an overwhelming consensus on any specific issue to make changes. But I will ask Russ to take a look at the issue raised by Scott, whether he wants to add an informative reference to RFC 5657.

Another issue that I wanted to highlight is the question of what kinds of discusses are desirable/acceptable for documents that move from PS to IS. It is outside the scope of Russ' document, but generated nevertheless some interest. The IESG has discussed this matter and drafted some suggested guidelines. Look for a different thread on this list, under "Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track". Feedback on the guidelines would be appreciated.

Jari

_______________________________________________
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]