Pete, On 01/28/2014 12:56 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 1/27/14 7:55 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>> The Independent RFC Stream would seem more appropriate. >>> >> Well, if you run a document through the RFC Stream publication >> process, it doesn't get the same level/type of review as does running >> it through the IETF. At least in theory. >> > > If it were running through a WG and the WG wanted to publish it, I'd be > much more likely to believe that it was getting a better level/type of > review than running it through the ISE. But just getting a Last Call as > an AD-sponsored document? I have my doubts. > > And though Lars is right that we've been darn inconsistent about it, > 2026 does say that we're not supposed to be doing that: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.3 Which also says: "In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are easily recognizable." Pretty modern eh;-) And hightly likely to be meaningful to readers. More relevant though, the same section implies correctly that it'd be a bad plan to let people easily "circumvent the Internet Standards Process" and I would argue that doing an IETF LC is a fine way for that be tested. About as good as the ISE asking the IESG probably on balance though the trade offs differ. I suspect we'll be better off just not getting bothered until such time as someone takes on the always-gargantuan task of updating this bit of 2026. > The ISE can always send a message to the IETF list saying, "I'd like the > IETF to have a look at this document and send comments." I think it is > almost identically as effective as sending out an IETF Last Call for an > AD-sponsored Informational document. > > I can imagine times where an AD-sponsored Informational document is > useful, but I'm guessing there are far less than the number of times we > do it. I'm not at all clear why its useful to be bothered about that. Can you explain how we all win? I've no idea what's in draft-yourtchenko, but I do not have any general problem with something that could be sent to the ISE being handled in this way. And nor should any of us I reckon, unless we prefer pointless process over getting-stuff-done, in the absence of a particular issue with the draft. S. > > pr >