Stephen, --On Thursday, October 3, 2019 21:40 +0100 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Changing the subject, hope that's ok) Probably overdue although I wanted my note to reflect the subject line Christian used. So thanks. General comment: I think Brian's I-D is a very important contribution to what I increasingly see as the key discussion. I think (at least) the three of us agree that discussion is due or overdue (except insofar as we see the core issues as having been settled in July 2018). From my personal standpoint, whatever the IAB or RSOC decide to do to be sure there isn't a break in the RFC Editor Function on Heather's departure is very nearly irrelevant except insofar as those decisions foreclose or preempt options for the future of the RFC Series. Unfortunately, I see a very real risk of such foreclosure or preemption occurring, whether by accident or intentionally. >... >> Not in a few words, but may I point to >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comme >> nts ? > > Sure. I recall reading that before. > >> The most relevant text is: >> >> The reasonable conclusion from the above is that none of >> the I* organisations (IETF Trust, IETF LLC, IETF, IESG, >> IAB or ISOC) can claim exclusivity of ownership or control >> over the RFC series. It is community property and must >> operate on behalf of the community as a whole. > > I'm not sure that considering this in terms of who owns or > controls what is our best bet TBH, even though that is partly > in contention I guess. It may be easier to first roughly > define what is meant by a "larger community" (though I may > be wrong about that as I often am;-). I would suggest that it implies not only "readers of RFCs" (your categorization later in your note) but everyone who is dependent on them. To the extent to which we want to be even partially as an engineering body rather than a recorder of common industry practices (a long note I wrote about that some time ago, but was assured that no one had read, might be relevant here) that means publication, not only of documents that describe the IETF's conclusions but documents that explain why the IETF might be wrong under some circumstances and what should be done instead. It includes procurement people who want to be sure that whatever they buy conforms to some standard. That implies that the standard has to be clear and stable but not that they will ever read it (if things don't work and they call in the lawyers, it may imply that the latter, and experts they hire, would need to read it carefully). That, in turn, raises some issues about what "the standard" for a particular topic or protocol really is, which segues into the Newtrk work that the IESG at the time blew off but the underlying issues are as significant now as ever. >From my point of view, very few of those issues are actually separable from each other and, as Brian points out, it "would be a serious mistake to try to fix the IETF's process only by fiddling with the RFC series". I'd actually go a bit further and suggest that it is hard to think clearly about the RFC Editor Function without understanding what the IETF --and those who are, or should be, dependent on its work-- actually need and want. If, for example, the IETF were to go significantly in the direction of turning technical specifications into living documents, then a different publication model might be needed (it may be helpful to remember that Newtrk never anticipated ISDs or other summary documents being part if the RFC Series and subject to its constraints. On the other hand, if the IETF were to move in the direction of 5 year review cycles and completely replacing earlier documents, that would also force large changes in the relationship between IETF technical specs and the RFC Series. > I guess one could extend it to people affected by the RFC > series, but then you're up to 7.7 billion and counting > which doesn't seem right really. See above. I think that, wrt the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function, it would help a lot if the IETF and IAB assumed the role of trustees for that broader community, thought carefully about what that would mean, shared those thoughts as widely as possible, and opened them for discussion. >... best, john
