On Dec 2, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Of course, YMMD and, in particular, you might consider this
potential problem to be important enough to have other criteria.
The "enhanced NOOP" discussion on the SMTP list just reminded me
that we're talking about protecting IANA, RFC editor, and Trust
from legal enforcement.
Frank
I'm late getting into this discussion, but also have the advantages
of seeing arguments on all side at once :-)
it seems to me that the final decision on this issue would be a
tradeoff in a multi-dimension space:
- how much gain vendors/users may get from publishing an RFC at time=T
vs at (T + 2 months)
in particular if the publication is tagged with some provisional
clause.
- how strong is the desire of wanting the published RFCs to be stable
(i.e. minimizing the chances of reclassification, with an
understanding
that we cannot completely eliminate the chance)
- As pointed out above, what may be the legal complication, if there
is any,
in handling appeals against a published RFC, and remedy the situation
when an appeal succeeds.
I too first thought that the process ought to be optimized for the
majority cases. I now realized that the optimization should be based
on the weighted percentages:
(% of no-appeal cases) X (gains from publishing 2-month earlier)
versus
(% of appeal cases) X (chance of an appeal succeeded)
X (cost from any potential legal complications
and remedy)
The remedy here may also include the cost to those people who acted
on a published RFC in its first 2 months.
so the question to me is really: can we quantify the values of those
weight factors?
(as an academic I dont have a lot clue here)
Lixia
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf