|
On 7/3/19 4:23 PM, Richard Barnes
wrote:
On 7/3/19 4:15 PM, Richard Barnes 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.
I think it's inappropriate for a WG to *claim* that any
particular version of a document is stable prior to IETF-wide
consensus. Publishing a document on github or similar doesn't
make it stable, it just means that changes will be visibly
tracked.
Keith
|
