In <200202032055(_dot_)g13Ktx900539(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
I'm arguing that any document series is only valuable if it has
some editorial standards, and that trying to be "too open" with
that series just wastes our time and resources and invites
confusion - even if you and I both know that not all RFCs are
standards, and not all standards are worth implementing.
Quite so. I have proposed two features of such an editorial standard:
(1) Existence of an accessible specification.
(2) Existence of a forum for discussion.
I think I would add two more:
(3) Automatic removal as soon as (1) or (2) ceases to hold.
(4) Machinery to remove entries that are plain "bad".
Of course, we need to put more flesh on those bare bones. Under (1), we
might say "Internet Drafts only", though I feel that is too restrictive.
Under (4), Graham's draft says that the IESG can insist on removal of an
entry (or, in practice, probably an Area Director or his nominated
"expert"). That would be the minimum requirement - you could perhaps
invent further hurdles. And perhaps the IESG should be able to appoint a
different "proponent" (for example, if a header is proposed, and the IESG
decides to set up a working group to move it forward to a standard, then
the working group chair automatically takes control of the registry
entry).
But the chief problem is this. You can make the hurdles higher (insist on
all sorts of tests for whether a header is "suitable") or you can make
them lower (accept every proposal regardless). But, at the end of the day,
what the people out there are looking for is something that gets their
headers into use, at least on a trial basis. The full IESG standards-track
mechanism is seen as too slow (though for sure it remains the final
arbiter). If you make the hurdles too high, people will just ignore them
and carry on regardless (much what happens at the moment). The art of the
matter is to set them at a level which gives us (TINU) more control over
the process than we have at present, which means we have to persuade the
people out there that using our machinery is worth their while.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5