--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:30 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> wrote:
Your argument seems to me to be the latest version of the
30-year old discussion about whether all RFCs are standards.
...
Not quite 30 years, because it took us a while to start using
terms like "standard", and even longer to get the IETF into
existence into existence. But, as part of that long argument it
is worth reminding those those think that non-standards RFCs
should be published in a different series that the IETF, after
it was created, decided to publish its standards-track documents
in the RFC Series. It isn't as if the other documents were
somehow grafted on -- it is the IETF standards-track materials
that were grafted on to what was previously an
almost-all-independent-submissions situation (there were a few
IANA and IAB documents in the series too). I know you know
that, but others seem to forget, and to do so fairly regularly.
The Headers & Boilerplate document is supposed to help with the
identification situation by explicitly identifying the streams
and the role of each. If those warnings are not sufficient, it
is not clear to me that boilerplate notes, of the variety that
RFC 3932 has been read as calling for, will help much.
...
And even documents in the
IETF stream (which includes
individual submission, by the way) very considerably in
quality and safety.
Hmm. I have a counter-proposal to those IESG members who
believe in their right to include negative-sounding comments
about independent submission documents without explaining the
reasons for their objections (or, often, even the objections
themselves) or taking responsibility for those objections by
signing their names or at least putting explicit information
into the tracker.
The current RFC Editorial Board contains significant expertise
and does review the Independent Submission documents for
technical adequacy. If IESG membership is a special
qualification, it is worth noting that the Editorial Board's
membership includes several former ADs and even two former IETF
Chairs.
How about we start Editorial Board review of all IETF Stream
documents arriving from the IESG and, where the Editorial Board
deems it appropriate, attaches notes that reflect on the quality
and/or safety of the ideas suggested. I imagine that the
Editorial Board would at least be willing to be specific about
objections and to sign specific notes, unlike, at times, the
IESG.
Let the second-guessing begin!
No, not really.... it is a terrible idea and I can't imagine
most Editorial Board members having time, but perhaps it makes
the point.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf