At 1:11 AM -0700 10/13/09, SM wrote:
At 12:18 12-10-2009, Stephen Kent wrote:
When the site closed, do you believe that all of the material
published there will become inaccessible, not archived anywhere? I
I am not sure whether all the material will be available at
archive.org or other archiving sites. If the material is archived
on one site only, there's a risk of "too big to fail". I can change
the material I publish. That's not always good if the material is
to be used as a reference (immutability). It took me some time to
understand that sometimes we need access to an old version of a
specification, and not the latest one, even if that version contains
I agree with your observations, but I don't think that the RFC series
is the only way to achieve the characteristics you cite.
hat's part of the intrinsic qualities I mentioned in my earlier message.
The status quo does not mandate that the RFC Editor and the IESG
agree; it allows the RFC Editor to make a unilateral decision to
ignore an IESG note. So, I don't agree with the second part of your
statement above. I do agree that the change diminishes the
independence of the RFC Editor.
You are trying to persuade me to change my stance while I am trying
to persuade you to change yours. It is in essence a dialogue. If
one of us is the authority which makes the decision, that person can
make an unilateral decision and ignore the other person's opinion.
By invoking that authority, the person causes a break down of the
dialogue. When two parties are bound to work together on a regular
basis, that can result in an uncomfortable situation. Now, if we
have to add an appeal (it's not being made in an individual
capacity) to that, we can end up with a larger issue instead of a
difference of perspectives between an individual and a body.
Good points. My view is that a shift in the balance of power is
appropriate, and that an appeal process can increase confidence that
the IESG will not abuse its power (if granted). But, that is not a
guarantee. Not sure about your last sentence above, since the RFC
Editor is no longer an individual, but a function effected by a set
of individuals. At least the IESG, another set of individuals, least
appointed through in open process, unlike the RFC Editor.
Let's step away from the draft being discussed for a few minutes and
ponder on whether either of us is being unreasonable. Now, if we
cannot figure out the answer, let's ask (figuratively) someone else
for advice. We have the choice of accepting the advice even though
we are right or seeking an advice that will suite us.
Of course you and I are reasonable people :-). Not sure how the rest
of the paragraph above fits into our discussion though.
Ietf mailing list