On Thursday, January 20, 2005 15:07:27 -0500 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent
a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of course
the work-in-progress internet-draft does not. Given this, I
think it's appropriate any time we add to text for people
comment on "what we're asking ISOC to do". By proposing
adding a requirement to a document we expect will represent
agreement between ISOC and the IETF, we _are_ asking ISOC to
do something.
...
I think we need to be a little careful with any assumptions
about changes between that "work in progress" I-D and the
"published RFC". According to the I-D tracker, bcp-04 was in
the IESG's queue for _approval action_ at today's teleconf (I
haven't checked today to see if there has been an update but it
would normally take a bit of time to appear even had there been
an action). The reason for getting it into the queue is
described in the tracker and makes that listing basically a
placeholder -- it is a bit of a procedural ruse, but, at least
IMO, nothing serious. It creates an opportunity for abuse, but
I do not expect that it will be abused. But the important point
is that the queue entry is about -04, not about -05 nor some
"ready to be published" formal agreement text. Once something
is approved by the IESG and sent off to the RFC Editor, what
gets published is the document as sent modulo boilerplate,
editorial, and formatting changes.
Exactly true.
The various schedules that have floated around don't contain a
step for "rewrite the agreement into the form of a formal
agreement and then Last Call it again". The Last Call would,
IMO, be needed given a complete rewrite so that the community
could verify that the intent had not changed. If you (or
others) think such a rewrite is important, then you had best
start advocating that position and seeing if you can get support
behind it.
I think you must be reading something into my message that wasn't there.
I don't believe any such rewrite is necessary. I _do_ believe we had
better make sure that by the time the IESG approves the document, its
_contents_ will be agreeable to the ISOC board. Only at that point will
this document be the agreement between ISOC and the IETF, rather than
merely an expression of what the IETF is asking ISOC to agree to.
It is _that_ point I was trying to make in response to Fred's comment about
whether this document is "the agreement" or "the IETF's request" -- it is
both, depending on at what time you ask.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf