On 2007-01-29 18:08, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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
My assumption, maybe false, is that a lot of people have RFC mirrors and
relatively few have BCP mirrors. Also, my xml2rfc skills don't extend to
knowing whether I can directly cite BCPs in xml2rfc and get pointers
to the BCP and not the RFC. I'm willing to be educated on that point ;-)
(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.
Be specific. Which RFCs that update 2026 are not cited?
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...
If they were approved as formal updates, that is logged in the RFC Index.
If they weren't approved as formal updates, then they have to be regarded
as stand-alones.
"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.
Yes, I need to fix that text.
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).
My own expostulations on that topic are at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique
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.
But an ION isn't supposed to change any rules, so I don't think it
should even say that certain rules are not followed.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf