Re: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Frank,

Thanks for the comments.

On 2008-01-19 21:58, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  
>> mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is
>> always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date).
> 
> IMO they should resume to publish ??00 RFCs as STD 1 at least when
> there is a new or updated STD.  If they really hate it there should
> be a "last" STD 1 deprecating itself.  Some tools (not only offline
> collections with an old snapshot) and users still expect that STD 1
> exists, whatever 2026bis says, a last STD 1 also needs to be clear.

Yes, I agree that *either* we should cleanly terminate the STD 1
mechanism *or* we should implement it as originally documented.
The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004)
is clearly misleading for outsiders. My personal preference is
clean termination, but obviously that should be a consensus question.

> 
>>> Removing the right to initiate a "standards actions" from the
>>> community is a bad idea.  That's not "aligning with reality", I
>>> tested it, it works like a charme, the RFC in question meanwhile
>>> got its number.
>  
>> I didn't intend that at all. Where do you find that?
> 
> 3.14 == old ==
> | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
> | Group, a recommendation by an individual to the IESG.
> 3.14 == new ==
> | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
> | Group, an agreement by an Area Director to recommend a
> | specification to the IESG. 
> 
> You move the "action" right from the community to IESG members.

Oh, OK, I need to put in more words to say something like
"a recommendation by an individual to an Area Director willing
to sponsor the specification..."

I didin't mean to remove the individual from the process.

> 
> I also hated it when you (or Jari ?) did in essence the same with
> the right to create a "Pubreq" for non-WG documents.

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html
is intended to make it *easier* for individuals by actually
clarifying the procedure - we had lots of experience that
just sending a draft to the IESG collectively really didn't work.
It's only when an AD is willing to actively push a document
that it will get the IESG's attention.

(And BTW this does work - just look at the number of non-WG
drafts that make it onto the IESG agenda.)

    Brian

> 
>> don't you think there should be an appeal path if an IANA-
>> considerations expert reviewer makes a dubious decision?
> 
> Yes, my two examples were for both sides, there's no WG Chair who
> could "protect" expert reviewers...
> 
>> Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG, so wouldn't be
>> covered by my language.
> 
> ...good, I missed "by the IESG" after "appointed to IETF roles".
> 
>  Frank
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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