On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:18 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/3/19 4:15 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:10 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/3/19 4:04 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Hi there all,
>
> TL;DR: Being able to mark a specific version of an *Internet Draft* as
> “stable” would often be useful. By encoding information in the name
> (stable-foo-bar-00) we can do this.
>
> Heather and I will be holding a side meeting at IETF 105 to discuss
> the idea and get feedback.
> When: Tue, July 23, 3:00pm – 4:30pm
> Where: C2 (21st Floor)
It seems to me that this would defeat the entire purpose of
Internet-Drafts and serve to circumvent the IETF process. There
should be no expectation of stability until a document has reached
IETF-wide consensus.
Why is it necessary to conjoin those two things?
Because a working group does not have the authority to make such decisions on its own. To the extent that it would be desirable to invest such authority in some body for some specific purpose, a working group is the wrong kind of body to do that. The norms around IETF WG operation aren't the right ones for such a body.
Doesn't have the authority to publish stable specifications? Obviously, a WG can't publish something and claim it has consensus or is an RFC. But WGs already have the ability to publish stable docs, by publishing them on github or on IPFS. This is just about making them easier to find and reference.
I think maybe you're over-inflating the significance of this proposal.
--Richard
