Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of I

On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get  
> a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional  
> IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b)  
> something that is always applied to the published RFC. Please reply  
> before the next IESG meeting on September 10. Some e-mails on this  
> topic have already been sent in the Last Call thread -- I have seen  
> those and there is no need to resend.


I am happy to see the document being reverted so that an IESG note is  
exceptional.
Over the last years I've started to appreciate the fact that the RFC  
Series is not exclusively an IETF series. On the other hand I am  
sensitive to the argument that most consumers of RFCs do not see the  
fine distinction between standards track and non-standards track RFCs,  
let alone the difference between non-standards track from various  
streams. Headers and Boilerplates tried to address that and hopefully  
helps to clarify the fact that not every RFC is an IETF Standards  
Track document.
However, the whole RFC streams framework has been build with complete  
independence of the various stream in mind. In my opinion that makes  
sense. The IAB should not be able to force notes on IETF stream  
documents, the IRTF should not be able to put them on IAB stream  
documents, and the IESG should not be able to force them on IRTF, IAB  
and Independent documents. In other words it is not clear to me why  
the combination IESG and the Independent stream should have a special  
status. And, as other mentioned, deciding about that special status is  
not a matter that rests solely with the IESG/IETF stream.
I do think that in essence this is a fairly theoretical discussion. I  
believe that in general notes from the IESG will have merit and  
recommendations will in general be followed, specifically since they  
are likely to be exceptional. In the case that the judgement, by the  
IESG and ISE, of merit conflicts, there is a procedure in RFC 5620.
I'm for (a).



--Olaf (no hats)


________________________________________________________

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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