Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6

--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:27 PM +0200 Lars Eggert 
<lars(_dot_)eggert(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Looks good. My only comment is about where the justification
> is to be provided - the PROTO writeup is at least an
> alternative to putting this into the document itself, and IMO
> it's a better alternative.
Lars,

There is a tricky balance about going into too much detail here. 
In general, I prefer to see phrases like "in a way specified by 
the IESG" to language about where things go (much less debates 
about that language).   On the other hand, this sort of document 
is exactly the sort of place where the IESG specifies what it 
wants to see and where it wants to see it, so being more 
specific here doesn't disturb me too much.
The PROTO writeup is a fine place iff the IESG either includes 
that writeup in the Last Call or, better, includes an explicit 
note that the authors have asked for an exception to some 
particular guideline and pointing to the PROTO writeup for their 
explanation.
If the PROTO writeup is, in practice, only examined by the IESG, 
then it is the IESG, and the IESG alone, reviewing the argument 
for an exception and making the decision.  The IESG should be 
evaluating and reflecting community consensus if the community 
cares.   If the community doesn't, then I'm happy leaving thing 
up to the IESG.  But having something the community might want 
to consider hidden in an obscure place, with no notice to the 
community, should not, ever, be the basis for a conclusion that 
the community doesn't care.
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:49 AM -0500 Eric Gray 
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Not having it actually in the RFC itself means that it
> effectively disappears on publication.  This is both a feature
> and a flaw.
>
> If the justification is included in the published RFC, the
> precedent is very much clearer (and - thus - much less likely
> to be the cause of confusion and discussion in the future).
Eric, while it is clearly a judgment call about what is 
important, your suggestion above could easily be extended to 
suggest that it was necessary to have all WG discussions about 
alternatives included in every WG-produced, Standards-track RFC 
that is published.  Sometimes that might not be a bad idea but, 
as a rule I think it leads to absurdity.
Ultimately, an argument that an exception should be made in a 
particular case is an argument that the choice is technically 
and substantively harmless and hence essentially an editorial 
matter.   If that is true, then we certainly don't preserve 
long-term documentation of editorial decisions (doing so would 
lead, not merely to absurdity, but to madness).    If the matter 
is judged by the community to be substantive and not editorial, 
then I would expect the exception request to be rejected, so 
there would be nothing much to document.
     john



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