we agree to disagree Scott > On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:52 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The problem I have is with not publishing as an RFC. I don't think >> people should have to dig through email archives (which are not as >> reliably archived as the RFC series) to find out what the whole IETF >> process is, or even the evolution history of the IETF process. I think >> even brief deviations from the process should be archived the same as >> any other changes to the process. > > There's not a lot of "digging through" when we're posting it to > ietf-announce (fairly low-volume, and where things such as NomCom > announcements and other appointments, RFP decisions, and other Very > Important IETF-related decisions are posted). I think, personally, > that the kinds of exceptions we're talking about here are pretty much > equally important to, say, the announcement of the NomCom chair, the > NomCom's decisions about whom to appoint to the IESG and IAB and LLC > Board, the IAB's appointment of ISOC BoT directors, and the like. The > ietf-announce list is, in fact, where we archive all of that stuff. > None of it goes into RFCs. > >> But I'll flip this on its head: why did we suddenly become so concerned >> about the overhead of publishing a single RFC, when as far as I can tell >> we've had a pretty low bar for RFC publication all along? > > Because (1) there is significant overhead, and publishing them does > get in the way of publishing other RFCs (including clearing out > Cluster 238), and (2) the RFCs are an archival document series, which > we would LIKE to keep to things of actual, long-term importance. > Historical information is (and should be) available elsewhere. > > Barry >
