Re: [IAB] [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
--On Wednesday, September 23, 2009 08:02 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: ... I came up with some ways of changing the text, e.g., just saying work done in the IETF and dropping the word community. However, is not clear to me that any other words couldn't be misunderstood in the similar manner. In addition, if we dropped the word community, would this mean that a BOF that is about to be chartered as an official working group would not count as an IETF activity yet? For better or worse, a group that is putting together a BOF under current rules -- applications, posting of draft agendas and sometimes even charters, etc.-- represents considerable work done in the IETF. One that is about to be chartered is even further along. The problem area, wrt either the IRTF or Independent Submissions, is when someone has sort of started thinking that it might be a good idea for the IETF to do some work in the area... someday. That isn't work in the IETF because no real work has been done and the text doesn't say speculation about possible work in the IETF. Expanding to the IETF community might bring in the speculations, organizations that use IETF documents but are not the IETF itself, etc. There is obviously still a gray area there, but I'm inclined to trust the IESG's discretion -- and the problem resolution procedure-- rather than trying to nail down every boundary case. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
--On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 18:37 +0200 Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no wrote: ... I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps clarified (say to include planned standards work or some such). That phrase was also present in RFC 3932, and, as you note, in RFC 2026. I'm concerned that in our eagerness to make the perfect document, we might be making too many changes, especially at what's hopefully a late stage in the process of getting that revised. Yes. But, as Aaron points out, the phrase as written is wrong. And bringing these wrong phrases forward then gets us into arguments about precedent, i.e., that must be exactly what was intended because it has occurred in multiple documents over a long time. IMO, that means it is time to fix it. If I remember rightly (but vaguely) from the writing of 3932, the phrase was kept that way because we didn't want to be unable to speak about a document just because the WG wasn't chartered yet, or the work was processed through independent submissions to the IESG, or any of the other multitude of ways work gets done in the IETF without invoking excessive procedural overhead. Quite reasonable. But one could say or work under development in the IETF or equivalent without invoking the ever-controversial IETF community. That said, the IESG notes in 3932 were tailored for conflict with WGs specifically - it was also the desire of the IESG-at-the-time that the note to the RFC Editor needed to *identify* the work it conflicted with, not just a vague there's work in this area. And the latter has gotten somewhat lost along the line, along with the concept that those statements were general guidance about what was intended, not literal text to be invoked as incantations. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is not clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the RFC Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be. Thus it is the ISE not the RFC Editor that will be asking for the IESG to review documents in the future. The first level of negotiations would be between the ISE and the ISEG, the second level would add the RSE and the final level would be the IAB. RFC Editor includes the ISE (the model defined the ISE as one of the components of the RFC Editor) RFC5620: Note that RFC 4844 uses the term RFC Editor function or RFC Editor as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo provides a model for internal organization. This memo introduces the term RFC Series Editor or Series Editor for one of the organizational components. This change from the RFC Editor processing independent submissions to an ISE doing the same thing - with an additional layer of possible internal review from the RSE - is not reflected in the document. Correct. Personally I don't think that is a big issue. If the RFC series allowed footnotes I would add a footnote about how it would work out with the ISE and RSE in version 1 of the RFC Editor model --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
