Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker 
<dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
> of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
> enough about IETF procedures and the like

On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex; we 
just have more documentation about it.  Whether that makes it easier or 
harder to know enough about IETF procedures would seem to depend on the 
accuracy and currency of that documentation.



> On reflecting about the forces that seem to have led to the creation of
> the ION "experiment", I suspect that there are two concerns:  1) Needing
> a label that collects together internal operating notes and distinguishes
> them from other IETF documents, and 2) the overhead of getting an RFC
> published.
>
> The first could be solved easily by adding a new, non-standard-track
> sub-label to the RFC series and I suspect the latter could be resolved by
> making an arrangement with the RFC Editor to have IONs go through less
> handling and proofing overhead. (And, gosh, this might even give a basis
> for reviewing why RFC publication has become high overhead...)

I don't think it's just about the overhead of getting an RFC _published_; 
it's about the overhead of achieving IETF consensus on one.  Process BCP's 
should be about IETF-level policy, not the operational practices of the I* 
or of any other entity that implements those policies.

Recently, the Federal Communications Commission in the US adopted a number 
of changes to regulations governing the Amateur Radio service.  The changes 
were "officially" published on November 15, and went into effect 30 days 
later.  In between, someone noticed an error which inadvertently made 
certain operations illegal that should not have been, and asked the FCC to 
fix it.  The fix was approved on December 15, the same day the new 
regulations became effective, and will probably become effective sometime 
in February.

The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a year 
plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues.  A similar correction to an 
ION would have taken days, at most.  And that's sort of the point - overall 
policy should be set by IETF consensus, but operational details should not.

-- Jeff

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