Robert-
Thanks for the (quick) clarification. I misunderstood the intent of your note.
--aaron
On 6 Sep 2018, at 16:30, Robert Sparks wrote:
Aaron -
To be a bit more clear, my point is to twist the IESGs arm about recent pushback on WGs publishing requirements documents...
RjS
On 9/6/18 3:22 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
On 6 Sep 2018, at 16:07, Robert Sparks wrote:
(Repeating one thing from my Last Call review for the benefit of the IESG):
This was a big effort, and it appears that it was helpful to the folks
working on the interface document, but it's not clear how it will be
useful to implementers. The IESG should consider whether this, like
requirements documents, needs to be in the RFC series. The most likely
use I can see in the future would be for historians, and a different
and shorter presentation would serve them better.Hi Robert-
This seems like more useful information for RFC Editor than for the IESG. According to RFC2026 the IESG's criteria for publication for Informational RFCs are:
4.2.2 Informational
... The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).and
6.1.2 IESG Review and Approval
The IESG shall ... determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
So, I don't think the IESG gets to decide that it doesn't belong in an RFC just because it doesn't it wouldn't be useful to implementors or historians (only two of many RFC audiences). I suggest you take your concerns up with the TAPS working group, who thought it was important to document their analysis, and/or Heather (cc'ed).
--aaron
