At 11:43 PM -0700 8/31/10, Tony Li wrote: > > Many of the Internet Drafts in the references are long-expired, including > > one of the two normative references. This will make for an interesting > > conversation with the RFC Editor. > > >The expired normative reference is the design goals document. We'll be >updating that and passing that up for IRSG review as well.
Great. Note that I don't need to be Cc'd on the ensuing discussion of this topic; I just wanted to point out that the current state of a long-expired draft as a normative reference *might* cause problems with the RFC Editor; it also might not. >Note that many of the other proposals are not opting to publish as RFC status, >so many of the informational references will time out. I'm not particularly >happy about this, but I don't see a good solution either. We can't exactly >force people to publish. Exactly right. Thus, a note in the introduction about this could be useful, given that the research value of an academic paper published a few years ago and an Internet Draft that expired a few years ago are approximately the same. >You're right, this is tricky. We've been over the wording quite a bit, but >apparently it's still not sufficiently clear. The recommendations themselves are clear; the motivations for why they are in this document are what is not. >Our directive from Aaron was very simple: whatever process we chose, it had to >be open. We could have flipped a coin, rolled dice, or thrown darts. >Instead, we tried for consensus. When that didn't materialize we added our >own two cents. Let me drill down a bit on that. Was your process going into this "get consensus; if success, publish the results of that consensus; if fail, don't publish anything" or "get consensus; if success, publish the results of that consensus; if fail, let the co-chairs write up their own views". OK, that wasn't really fair. I will assume that the process going into this was "get consensus and publish the results of that consensus" with no thought of failure. >We've been trying to be as clear as possible about this and it took several >passes to get to the current wording. Any suggestions on how we could >wordsmith this? That is really between the RG and Aaron, I think. Determine if the process was open, and whether you followed it. If so, simply add a paragraph about the process in the introduction and/or Section 17. If not, maybe try again, even if process fatigue has set in. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
