[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt]
I invite the IETF community to read this draft and discuss the choices it suggests, between now and the Montreal IETF. Brian Original Message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:50:01 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Questions about the standards track Author(s) : B. Carpenter Filename: draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt Pages : 10 Date: 2006-6-9 This document sets out some thoughts about three possible directions for further work on the evolution of the IETF standards track. Its purpose is to stimulate community discussion leading to a choice between these three directions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 09:17 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt ,--- |The three possible ways forward are: | | 1. Agree that, apart from day to day efforts to improve efficiency, | the problems with the existing standards track are not serious | enough to justify the effort needed to make substantial changes. | Conclude that [RFC3774] exagerrated the problem and we only need | to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9 | [RFC2026]. | 2. Focus on the issue of document relationships, or as the newtrk | charter currently says the creation of a new series of short | IESG-approved IETF documents to describe and define IETF | technology standards. | 3. Focus on the three-stage standards track, or as the newtrk | charter currently says agree on a revised IETF Standards | Track... to replace the standards track described in RFC 2026. '--- Step 2 should be the first step taken to achieve a description of the relationships in a simple, easy to maintain fashion. The name.serial provides clarity by offering a name rather than a number that is easier to remember, and secondly a sequential number to allow a prediction of the identifier for the next document when it finally emerges. The relationships, friendly name, and a clear sequence is missing within the current structure. Once the existence of a relational document is instantiated, then Step 3 may seek to flatten the RFC documents by imposing a structure of similar design to that of Step 2 indicating the level of the name.serial documents and indirectly elevating or lowering the related documents. Once Step 2 and then Step 3 are taken, the person isolated on some remote island only afforded IETF documents should have little trouble understanding what should be used to fulfill their goals. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt]
My perception is that often in the IETF, protocol and process design works best that codifies and regularizes what is already being deployed. The model that seems to be emerging is that we now have a lot of revisions of first-generation protocols, with the recent slew of LDAP announcements as one example. They are typically marked as 'rfc1234bis'; the I-D database currently lists around 85 of these drafts as being active. The act of revising an earlier RFC presumably indicates that there is sufficient community interest in the technology and that this is maintenance based on implementation experience rather than a new protocol development. By default, declaring that '*bis' efforts are the second level of maturity unless there is an objection during last call would be sufficient to differentiate them from first, largely pre- implementation specs. (Naturally, RFCs that were perfect on first try could get petitioned into the second maturity level, with a simple method of collecting support from N independent parties, convincing and AD and based on a last call.) I don't see why the grouping/labeling of RFCs can't proceed in parallel, but in a different group. This seems much more mechanical and tools-oriented and could probably be done more readily on an experimental basis. If whatever mechanism is chosen doesn't work out, we can phase it out or supplement it with something else. Such experimentation seems harder to do, without major confusion, for standards maturity levels. On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I invite the IETF community to read this draft and discuss the choices it suggests, between now and the Montreal IETF. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read the legislative history. For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. See my point? Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it has. A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this discussion. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of everyone else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) do to. All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let for publishing such standards. If that contract is let to ISI I would expect it to continue under the RFC imprint. If that contract is let to another organization, I wouldn't expect it to continue under the RFC imprint and I'm OK with that. Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. Bolded the above because they keep getting missed. Mike At 02:43 PM 6/10/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read the legislative history. For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. See my point? Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it has. A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this discussion. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of everyone else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) do to. All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let for publishing such standards. If that contract is let to ISI I would expect it to continue under the RFC imprint. If that contract is let to another organization, I wouldn't expect it to continue under the RFC imprint and I'm OK with that. Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. Bolded the above because they keep getting missed. Mike At 02:43 PM 6/10/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret
