JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My proposition would be to create a "minority position" system. Where
such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally
involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority
opinion.
Unfortunately not. RFC 3246 is Standard Track, RFC 3248 is
informational. RFC 3246 is published.
They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is
the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF
publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two
standards for the same bits.
This case is when two IETF groups
have different opinions.
The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG
consensus,
That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes
the documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all
contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't
mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations.
When we become aware of another SDO working on an alternative
solution, we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is
no algorithm for how that dialogue will terminate.
while the Internet is no more a place where one can consider
that an erroneous RFC supported by market leaders will quickly deprecate
and not hurt.
The resources of the other SSDO are dedicated to its own business. It
may however make the effort of a QA delegate to the Internet standard
process. Experience shows that without an MoU a conflict may quickly
develop (as if two foot-ball teams met, but one team would, in addition
to be a challenger, have only one player present. This is all the more
true if the results of the match counts for the world cup).
The "minority position" would avoid to enter into an SSDO/IETF complex
MoU and liaison committee (I feel you are not found of anyway). All the
more than the problem may be purely occasional and the solution be to
politely pay attention to mutual needs rather than to ban the SSDO
liaison. This can only be detrimental to a final common solution and
would resolve nothing since the SSDO has human resources a plenty.
If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for publication as
an RFC, I can't see any reason why the "RFC 3248 approach won't work.
I can't see any need to add more process than we already have.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf