--On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 22:56 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/08/15 22:43, Joe Touch wrote:
>> As to the process issue, I see absolutely no rationale for
>> not opening this to a -bis style editing cycle except the
>> hope of clinging to a already issued RFC number.
>
> Late here sorry so just on this for now - that was discussed
> on the saag list. From that and from chats with folks the main
> argument for doing this in-place was that the text is
> considered good enough as-is and a belief that we'd not do
> much better despite what'd likely be a long and likely
> fractious discussion of the kind I guess you are arguing would
> be better.
Stephen, it seems to me that the desire to make the point that
1984 represents time-tested ideas can be combined with the
desire to make more nuanced statements in some areas --areas
where either 1984 was weak or hasn't really stood the test of
time if one examines the details and/or where 1984 doesn't offer
enough normative guidance -- could both be accommodated by
creating a new document as a supplement or addendum to 1918 and
then moving both to BCP. I'm still not positive that is the
right solution, but it would at least allow the community to
have a serious discussion on the provisions of 1918 (and what
needs supplementation) consistent with a normal IETF Last Call.
Given that there is controversy about, at least, details and
style, the effect of the procedure now being followed is to
force the community into the equivalent of an up or down vote.
That is uncomfortable for at least some of us who find little to
disagree with about the text of 1918.
However, there seems to be resistance to discussion of such a
two-document approach, one that I'm having trouble
understanding. If the ultimate answer is "too much work" or
"not enough interest to do the work", then I suggest we have no
meaningful consensus about the status change and it should be
dropped.
john