|
Re: [isdf] Re: www.internetforce.org
2004-01-09 01:30:25
--On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 23:32 +0100 jfcm <info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net>
wrote:
At 21:45 08/01/04, John C Klensin wrote:
A better answer would have been "the term 'request for
comment' is historical, dating from a time when the
preferred way to make a formal comment on a document
involved writing another document, which then was numbered
into the series". That mechanism is still available,
although usually very slow. But documents that become RFCs
are now first posted as Internet Drafts (see
http://www.ietf.org/ID); comments on those are both
solicited and, usually, handled very quickly.
Today, the RFC Series, despite retention of the original name
and numbering series, acts as a permanent, archival,
repository of information, decisions taken, and standards
published. As such, documents in the series are subjected
to review and editing processes (which differ somewhat
depending on the type of document and are appropriate for
conventional references from conventional documents. Running
conversations, logs of comments, etc., are not well suited
for that archival and reference role, regardless of their
other advantages and disadvantages.
Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for
each RFC? Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and
implementation could be listed by the authors (or a successor)
from experience and questions received. It would avoid the
same questions to be debated again and again and it would help
further thinking. These comments could start with a summary of
the WG debated issues, explaining the whys of some options. I
suppose the implementation would be easy enough since it would
follow the same numbering scheme and titles. Such a LOC being
an updated appendix could be reviewed and help preparing
replacements.
Jefsey,
There are many ways by which almost any system could be, or
could have been, designed or evolved. Typically each has its
advantages and disadvantages, even if, overall, the difference
in effect is slight. Certainly the Internet standards and
definitions process could have evolved with RFCs and LOCs or
some other pieces. Certainly the idea of "standards" could have
been put in place early in the process, and we could have called
what are now "Internet-Drafts" "RFCs" instead, could have had
standards in a separate series, and had an additional separate
series for experimental and informational documents (we might
even have followed the lead of some other bodies and called the
latter series "technical reports", which they are definitely
not). And certainly we could have adopted a distinct
numbering system and document series for standards along with a
regular review model, standing WGs to which each standard is
applied, and revisions that share the number but have different
dates or revision numbers.
In some cases, the fact that we didn't go down those paths is an
historical accident. In others, it was a very deliberate
decision. And, in some cases, the path that was chosen was very
important in shaping how the IETF operates or reflects the
nature of those operations (e.g., the fact that we generally
close WGs that have finished their work, rather than encouraging
them to find new things to keep them busy has, I believe, been
very important in keeping us from developing many standards that
no one wants and that are out of touch with reality).
But we do things in a particular way that mostly works (although
it should probably be more effectively and accessibly
documented), and, while we might tune things differently or use
different terminology if we were starting over today, what
purpose would it serve to develop redundant mechanisms that
would require extra volunteer or staff effort to make work and
keep working and that would leave people uncertain as to where
to go for information? And what purpose is served by proposing
such an action?
Regards,
john
|
|