Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex;
we just have more documentation about it.
1. We used to have far more flexibility about wg process than we now do. Small
tasks required small effort. The substantial procedures for creating and
running a working group and producing documents that are today typical used to
be reserved for larger and more difficult efforts. This includes now tending to
require BOFs and tending to require Requirements documents, and so on.
2. The requirements for the form of wg documents have also changed, notably with
respect to required boilerplate. In addition, the boilerplate changes with some
regularity and the enforcement of the requirements is substantially more stringent.
I'm sure the list is longer, but the above seem sufficient for making the point.
I don't think it's just about the overhead of getting an RFC
_published_; it's about the overhead of achieving IETF consensus on
one. Process BCP's should be about IETF-level policy, not the
operational practices of the I* or of any other entity that implements
those policies.
Yes, the rules are different, just as the rules for Informational RFCs are
different from standards track RFCs. That's why the idea of a new RFC
sub-category make sense.
The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a
year plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues.
And then there is the possibility that you are describing a deeper IETF problem
that needs its own focus...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf