Archival, yes, but not in the RFC series. b On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 6:57 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Arguably, this decision, and our reasoning around it, is important for > archival purposes. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 3/27/2020 6:52 PM, Barry Leiba 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 > > >
