ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ion-procdocs open for public comment

2007-01-29 10:12:49
I should begin by thanking Brian for producing this document, both originally and in ION format.

An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public comment
on the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list. Comments should be sent by 2007-02-12.

Please see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-procdocs.html

I'll limit my comments to a "huh?" and a "grrr"...

"Huh?" - this document refers to IETF BCPs by RFC number, not by BCP number. The text says "Most of the cited RFCs are BCPs. RFC numbers have been used rather than BCP numbers, for convenient lookup."

I'm having a hard time understanding what lookup mechanisms are less convenient for BCPs than for RFCs (the RFC Editor search engine at http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl returns BCP numbers and STD numbers along with RFC numbers when you search for text, and returns BCP numbers when you search by number and click the selector for "BCP"), but the more serious concern is that RFC 2026 (for instance) is NOT the complete standards process in any meaningful way, since it has been updated 5 times so far (according to the RFC Editor search engine).

The IETF website has just updated pages that said "2026 = standards process" to say something like "2026 as updated = standards process" (http://www.ietf.org/IETF-Standards-Process.html on the main IETF web page used to be a direct link to 2026, but it's not any more.). Going back to "RFC 2026" in IONs is a step backward.

I don't know why the updates are not also part of BCP 9, but they should be. One Might Think. I'd rather fix that, than start training people to ignore the updates AGAIN...

"Grrr" - One Might Think that Newtrk is still active, from reading Section 2.2, "The newtrk WG was chartered to revise the standards track - multiple proposals have been floated, but no conclusions have been reached", but it has concluded. From what I can tell, draft ION correctly identifies missing documents that might usefully exist, but does not give any clue that parts of RFC 2026 are just flat-out ignored (see: RFC 2026, section 6.2, describing the periodic review of proposed standards and draft standards that we don't do).

I don't know why we would publish this ION ("Informal Guidance") without saying this. There are things in 2026 that we have argued about whether we do or not, but no one thinks we have ever done these reviews.

Thanks,

Spencer


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf