Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004)
is clearly misleading for outsiders.
Yes, for some time I thought that it's caused by what also caused
the "pending errata" congestion, or that they use another trigger
for a new STD 1 - a fresh RFC ??00 with no changes is pointless.
My personal preference is clean termination, but obviously that
should be a consensus question.
Anything that's more obvious than "align with reality", if there
was an info about what they intend I missed it (back in 2004).
3.14 == old ==
| or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
| Group, a recommendation by an individual to the IESG.
3.14 == new ==
| or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
| Group, an agreement by an Area Director to recommend a
| specification to the IESG.
You move the "action" right from the community to IESG members.
Oh, OK, I need to put in more words to say something like
"a recommendation by an individual to an Area Director willing
to sponsor the specification..."
Strike "willing". The "unwilling" scenario has to be a "decision":
E.g. if the proponent didn't submit a draft "writeup" questionnaire,
or if the recommendation is nonsense. Otherwise, if it's just the
AD "unwilling" to accept a recommendation or forward it to the IESG,
this has to be an appealable decision. Proponents forced to find a
"willing" AD is horrible.
I also hated it when you (or Jari ?) did in essence the same with
the right to create a "Pubreq" for non-WG documents.
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html
is intended to make it *easier* for individuals by actually
clarifying the procedure - we had lots of experience that
just sending a draft to the IESG collectively really didn't work.
If that boils down to "proponents either need to find a 'willing' AD
or submit a (draft) 'writeup' for their recommendation" it is okay
for drafts and RFCs written by somebody else. If proponents prepare
a 'writeup' normal cases of unwillingness (no time to read the memo,
and no idea what it's about) shouldn't enter the picture.
It's only when an AD is willing to actively push a document that
it will get the IESG's attention.
When a "Pubreq" token exists something will happen, tools like the
"tracker exceptions" help. With the RFC 2026 rules "an individual"
can trigger the standards action, with your rules this could depend
on a "willing" AD.
If "an individual" is "the author" there would a potential conflict
of interests, an author trying to draft a 'writeup' is biased. In
that case "an individual" (not limited to a "willing AD") is needed,
authors can't sponsor their own documents, the IETF is no Wiki... :-)
BTW this does work
When I tested it I hit an AD who wasn't convinced that what the I-D
talks about still exists. The "find a willing AD" procedure is very
embarrassing. It's okay if they don't like an I-D, or are unwilling
to be forced to vote "YES" later, but that shouldn't be the problem
of the author. The "an individual" (neither author nor willing AD)
loophole in RFC 2026 is a good compromise, please don't close it.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf