Hiya, On 05/02/2020 23:51, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 2/5/2020 6:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote >> 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. Well, to be fair, there was a public call for comment before the IAB adopted this. > > 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. Yep, the above seems (to me) like a good comment that could be handled without having to invent some new strict process for IAB stream document boilerplate - I'd hope that some variation in how these things are presented/worded is ok. > 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. That (the question of effects) seems like a separate point. Surely section 4 of the draft is all about actionable recommendations though so I'm a bit confused as to what you mean? Cheers, S. > > Later, Mike > > > > >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
