Hi John,
I understand your points and somehow agree on some of them.
I can try to establish a prioritization if that can help, and certainly I
will be happy to keep updating the document if at the end the decision is to
keep it in a web page, or just as a live I-D, or whatever else.
Regards,
Jordi
De: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:00:10 -0500
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Jordi,
Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant
parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying
issues that should be examined. There are several other parts
of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation
of a list of suggestions without prioritization lowers its
utility considerably. On the other hand, I doubt that consensus
even on the list of suggested principles is possible. Consensus
about how they should be prioritized would be more difficult
yet, and consensus among those with significant experience
planning and running IETF meetings would certainly be no less
difficult.
The difficulty, it seems to me, is the combination between that
problem with claiming consensus and what can and should be done
with the document operationally. It is just my opinion, but I
consider anything whose purpose is to tell the IAD, IAOC, or
IESG (or the IETF or IASA more generally) how to behave
procedurally or decide on things to be completely inappropriate
for publication as an independent submission RFC. If others
agree, then the only way to get this published as an RFC is via
the IESG and some IETF consensus process.
One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it
periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a
perspective that the IAD might consider. That has certainly
been done with some IETF and meeting operational documents in
the past. Another would be to pass it to the IAOC (see note
below) along with a suggestion that they establish a set of
periodically-updated IETF operating procedure notes and put this
(or a modified version of it) into that series. Otherwise...
well, I just don't know, even independent of the aspects of it
with which I disagree.
I will try to find time to send you a list of particular topic
areas about which we appear to disagree, but I don't consider a
discussion of those specific topics to be appropriate or useful
on the IETF list unless the IESG decides that this document
should be an IETF topic (e.g., via a Last Call for BCP).
john
(note: in both the document and some of your comments in the
last 24 hours, I think you've gotten the IAOC (the oversight
committee/ IASA decision body) and IASA (the whole
administrative operation in principle, but, in practice, just
the conceptual realization of the IAOC, the IAD (whom they
supervise), and the set of tasks and those who carry them out
that are supervised by the IAD and/or IAOC directly).)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf