On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote:
> Nit: > > > NOTE: The Note Well has changed. It now incorporates more legal > > verbiage around IPR disclosure. Everyone should review this. > > The slide shown in the WG seems to be out of date compared to > https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html, but the substantive > changes aren't in the Note Well; they are in RFC8179. > > More substantive: > > > - Andy Bierman: our review process discourages people from implementing > > early. Once it gets to the AD and the IESG, they can change > > anything they want. > > If a reviewer or an IESG member suggests a substantive change, > that doesn't give *them* the right to change it - a substantive > change must be brought back to the WG. So the underlying problem > here is not about who has control but about the fact that > implementing on the run almost guarantees that your implementation > will be out of date when the thing is finalised. That really is > not specific to yang, or to the IETF, or to networking. > > The WG has a choice: change the draft if you want it to be published as an RFC. They are usually motivated to clear the DISCUSS. > (In 1925, public electricity supply in London was at 24 different > voltages and 10 different frequencies. They didn't wait for the > standard to be final then, either.) > > It seems to me that declaring snapshots from time to time is > about the best we can do, accompanied by a strong warning that > the final version will be different. > I am not suggesting the review process needs to be examined (again). People are warned that a work-in-progress can change. > > Brian > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
