Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 3/1/26 15:13, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> > My concerns are significantly motivated by the fact that every time a 
"patch"
    >> > RFC for a given subject I work on hits the IESG there's a desire to
    >> > RELITIGATE the presence or absence of such considerations in the 
particular
    >>
    >> emphasis mine.
    >>
    >> > patch document, or the thoroughness or lack thereof in the base 
document that
    >> > is being augmented and has been deployed for years.
    >>
    >> Yes.  It would be nice if the IESG could find a better way.
    >> I think that we need a better articulated process for -bis documents.

    > Contrarily, I think -bis documents are an excellent place to fill in the 
gap
    > for missing operational and security considerations. My specific concern 
was
    > the usual "patch" documents we do that adds a minor feature on top of a
    > larger base one.

Actually, I think that we agree here.
It's a good thing to do in the -bis, but I'm reacting to the *relitigating* 
part.
It could be that there is now a sane and common way to manage the protocol,
and we should mention it.  It could be that it's still too diverse to 
standardize.

    > I'm still not thrilled by the idea of "here's giant boilerplate to
    > consider".  But that's the challenge of what your instructions are - have 
you
    > considered this, and how do you convey that you've done so.  Devolution to
    > checklist is abhorrent.

I also don't want a checklist *in the document*
I think it's probably worth having that checklist somewhere.
Does the document answer the following questions.
We already have this in Shepherd report for a ton of stuff.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email protected]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [



--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to