FWIW, +1
--On Friday, July 15, 2011 17:18 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
My apologies for the lateness of this review.
I am not happy with this document.
I was unhappy with the IESG's decision to close the ION
experiment, since I believe the mechanisms that were chosen to
replace it failed to fulfil several of the requirements that
were driving forces in the design of the ION mechanism (as an
example, try to find out who, if anyone, approved
http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html, what the
previous version was, and when this version was approved).
The document does not refer back to the aims of the
experiment, which I tried to make explicit in section 5 of RFC
4693, which include:
- Easy updating
- Explicit approval
- Accessible history
The sum total of analysis in this document is two sentences:
The cited IESG statement
It is clear that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC need the
ability to
publish documents that do not expire and are easily
updated.
Information published as web pages, including IESG
Statements, are
sufficient for this purpose.
The draft's statement
Taking everything into account, it was considered that
IONs added
complications to the maintenance of documents but did not
give a
corresponding benefit to the IETF.
I would at least expect those three points to be explicitly
addressed by analysis, such as:
- The IESG concluded that publication of IONs was more complex
than publishing Web pages and IESG statements
- The IESG concluded that the IESG statement mechanism, which
has no formal definition, was enough documentation of the
IESG's decisions where decision documentation was reasonable,
and that Web pages needed no explicit approval
- The IESG concluded that there was no need to provide an
accessible history of versions of the documents for which the
ION mechanism was intended
The document also needs a language check, but I feel that the
lack of *any* explicit analysis with respect to the aims of
the experiment, even an explicit statement that the issues
involved were considered not important, is the most important
shortcoming of the document.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf