Dave,
At 3:57 PM -0700 4/21/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
John,
JM> Although it may seem silly to
JM> some (and some of you may not want to hear from them anyway), the
JM> IETF's formatting rules do present a (relatively small) hurdle to
JM> public policy advocates and other outsiders.
well, this is an unexpected benefit of our formatting rules...
the IETF is a technical body, not a place for public policy debates.
Not to start an extended debate (especially in a thread on
formatting), but as much as the IETF would like to avoid public
policy debates (for good reasons that I appreciate), there are times
when _technical_ decisions have significant impact on public policy
concerns. I believe that neither the IETF nor the public are well
served by ignoring (or being unaware of) those potential impacts.
Thus, I think that there are times where public policy input into the
IETF is a healthy, constructive thing, especially if the input is
provided in a constructive matter (and yes, in a widely readable
format). To promote constructive, non-time-wasting input, I've
encouraged policy advocates to (a) learn about the procedures,
structure, and culture of the IETF before participating, (b) read and
review the relevant lists before participating, and (c) use the modes
of communication accepted by the community for their input. It is on
this last point that I-D formatting is relevant.
and to the extent you want to pursue the matter seriously, there are
at least two critical items to remembers:
1. The format requirements are easy to satisfy, with support for MS
Word and XML-based documents readily available;
Can the requirements be satisfied using MS Word and the multistep
production/post-processing procedures? Absolutely. There is even
evidence that some lawyers can do it. But it is not "easy" to
non-techies who seldom work within the standards world. And although
XML and Marshall's utility are great (separately and together), that
is way beyond what can reasonably be asked of a non-techie today.
I appreciate that the IETF is set in its ways (and more often than
not I appreciate those ways). A pitched battle to change the
formatting requirements is not one that I personally feel the need to
wage right now. But if on the other hand there is any broader
recognizition by the community that thoughtful and constructive
outside input can sometimes be valuable, then I would be happy to
participate in an effort to facilitate such input, or at least reduce
non-critical barriers to such input.
John