Hi Mike, On 05/02/2020 23:19, Michael StJohns wrote:On 2/5/2020 5:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on draft-iab-for-the-users-02. The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/> The Call for Comment will last until 2020-03-04. Please send comments to architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx and iab@xxxxxxx. Abstract: This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should consider end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can be done. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announceDoes this document represent an IAB consensus/aspiration or is this Mark writing as an IAB member? If the former, Mark should be listed as Editor, and the document should include text indicating how the IAB arrived at consensus (e.g. "This document represents the consensus of the IAB arrived at through (internal discussions | discussions with the community | workshop results | etc) " ). If the latter, the document should indicate "This document represents the author's personal opinion".I don't recall other documents being as formal as that about it, but sure, if/when the IAB decide to publish this after community comment then it could be clearer that it's an IAB document, e.g. by having Mark as editor as you suggest. That it is an IAB document seems fairly clear to me from the filename and from the IAB adoption call etc. that was sent to this list back last June/July, but I guess that's a while back.
Um.. yes, I know it's an IAB stream document - which does not
necessarily imply that it is a consensus document of the entire
IAB.
And going back and re-reading the announcement, it looks too much
like a last call request rather than a call for "help us make the
document better". I'm not sure why anyone would assume that the
IAB hadn't yet decided to publish it or something very like it.
As far as I can tell from the published RFC's - documents that
represent IAB consensus on a policy matter are mostly published as
"Editor" and have something that identifies how you got there:
E.g. RFC8558 had Ted as editor and included this in the status:
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Documents that are more "spec"ish (i.e. the RFC v3 format) either
have an editor or a technical expert as the author. And even
then you get the same statement - see RFC8546 and 8700
Those are the last three IAB stream documents published. Going back further a "tech"ish document omitted the "Consensus of the IAB" statement - RFC6574 - simply a report from a workshop.
That being said, these are all statements in the status section
which will be different from the ID to the RFC. It would be
useful for a policy document (I use the term "policy" loosely
here) to have that consensus statement be made somewhere. Mostly
in other documents its pretty clear how we got there - some event,
some workshop, some question asked at a plenary that's being
answered.
Here - I'm not sure what triggered the IAB into writing it and
worse, I'm not sure what affect you want it to have on the formal
IETF processes. Context would be good, actionable recommendations
would be better.
Later, Mike
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
