Re: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, July 13, 2005 16:57 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
> <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > General AD hat on:
> >
> > I'm concerned that since rfc2434bis is in progress, any
> > changes to
> > RFC 2434 should be made in that draft, not by an additional
> > document.
> > Otherwise we will end up with a patchwork quilt of documents.
> >
> > So I'd encourage the authors of iana-reg-policy to figure out
> > where
> > their ideas would impact
> > draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis,
> > and as the saying goes "send text."
>
>
> Brian,
>
> Let me/us respond to the substantive part of your message separately.   
> However, I think the above is, if not equivalent to, at least vaguely 
> similar to:  "forget everything that has been said about consensus 
> documents, if the right people (maybe defined here as 'authors of 
> original') post an I-D, it immediately supercedes the published 
> document".   I think that makes me very anxious.

And I don't understand your interpretation.
2434 is a consensus document and 2434bis is in progress and, assuming
it makes it through the process, will emerge as a consensus document.
All I meant to say was: let's make sure that the pieces of
iana-reg-policy that would modify 2434 are discussed as part of
forming consensus about the contents of 2434bis. Otherwise, we'd
risk ending up with inconsistent output documents.

> We have other rules that makes this problem even worse: when our I-D was 
> written, one possibility was that it would gain some traction, it would 
> be revised once or maybe twice, and we (or someone else) would request 
> an IETF Last Call.   If that, in turn, went smoothly and quickly, 

Why would it go more quickly than 2434bis, especially if the two
drafts remain inconsistent, as they certainly are right now?

> we'd 
> have a document that was intended to change the way registration 
> procedures were conducted making a probably-normative reference to a 
> working draft and the entire "update and fix to reflect community 
> consensus" blocked both procedurally and on the flow of the RFC Editor 
> queue.    Again, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

It wouldn't be a good idea. I would want to last call 2434bis and
iana-reg-policy simultaneously, with a specific intent that
they be mutually consistent.

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf