Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 09:04:17PM -0400, Keith Moore: > I could see some utility in having some documents being able to be > updated in place. But I would have serious concerns with document > content like RFC7525 (i.e. technical recommendations for implementation > and/or operation of protocols) approved without IETF consensus. It is > essentially part of a protocol specification. So a WG should not be > able to "publish" such a document, nor approve it based entirely on its > own consensus. That would not only bypass IETF consensus (and cross-area > review), it would effectively bypass appeals and other safeguards we > have in place. Since no one is excluded from participating in any WG, anyone can comment or object to any such document. Appeals also can be submitted by anyone, though the process for such a document would likely need to be different. > I also think trying to define IETF consensus for a moving target could > be challenging. Not impossible, perhaps, just challenging. > > But I'd be supportive of trying to streamline the IETF consensus process > for such documents, on the theory that review of such documents > (including analysis of likely effects) should be easier than review of > full protocol specifications. How? Coca leaves? I do not find any protocol changes in 7525 and it does not have an "Updates" header. That appears to have taken a year to be published. Could that be reduced to 1 month or less, esp. for updates, as you noted? Admittedly, I do not see the value in IAB/IESG review, in the sense that their construction has no particular value to me over other's review. A larger pool of potential (and equally competent) reviewers has greater value. Again, this is also about operations; 8212 and 8327 could have been part of a larger LD about BGP operations.
