John C Klensin wrote:
Everyone has their own favorite issues with RFC 2026 and most of
us have problems with it that they believe are serious enough to
fix. What we have seen in this discussion (and many before it)
is that there is little consensus on which issues are the most
important, nor about what should be done about them.
Yes, and after various attempts to create a 2026bis failed I think
Brian's approach to "fix" only a few low hanging fruits is fine.
In theory, of course some arguments (example) against renaming PS
and DS here convinced me that those are not "low hanging fruits".
Some would even argue that the entire Newtrk WG process was an
example of the problem.
I only hope that "PUFI" uses one of the existing PESCI (or was it
PECSI ?), newtrk, etc. mailing lists instead of starting its own.
there is a difference between "we are considering standardizing
this, speak up if you have strong opinions, especially negative
ones", "we are considering publishing this...", and "we are
looking for community comment on whether this is worth pursuing".
I think Last Call announcements should reflect those differences.
For technical documents, they generally do (although obviously
not in those words).
They didn't explicitly say that the 2821bis Last Call was actually
only a call to finish 2822upd... ;-)
I think procedural documents are different. The activity of
considering and discussing them is disruptive of the community.
I guess that's because you feel they are very important. Often
I think about topics I consider as very important, "oh no, I have
no time for this, why must they screw *now* with it, nothing is
horribly wrong with how it is", etc.
I think a Last Call --especially a Last Call that implies that
the IESG is seriously considering adoption and that community
silence might be construed as assent-- is inappropriate in the
absence of clear indications of community support for, and
interest in, the work.
I thought that "Last Call" means that *one* AD prepares a later
IESG decision. Not that the IESG collectively considers adoption,
or has necessarily an idea what the Last Call is about before the
various voluntary review teams create an "executive summary".
There has been little discussion except among the handful of
people in the community who can be counted on to comment on
almost any procedural issues (that includes you and,
unfortunately, me).
Yes, changing the rules makes me nervous for the known reasons.
But if an author, here Brian, tries to fix some known problems,
then that's good, and at some point in time the author needs to
know what others think about the proposed fixes.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf