Hector,
On 2011-08-04 09:19, Hector Santos wrote:
I appreciate this exchange here. I have a better idea of the draft and
your intention I have a few comments.
What I have noticed of late are fast track RFCs are coming out of no
where, very fast and sometimes are indirectly related to a WG but not a
WG chartered work item, and it may have an unforeseen influence in the
WG end results. While not all WGs are the same, this is what I
experienced in the DKIM WG. The problem comes when there is little or
isolating vetting to this external work.
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about
a) drafts that appear in the WG with very mature text, so complete
the WG progress very quickly?
b) drafts that are direct submissions to the IESG, and go through
IETF Last Call and IESG review without coming near the WG?
c) drafts that are Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,
so are only subject to minimal review by the IESG and are not
IETF documents at all?
And in case a) or b), are you talking about standards track and BCP
documents, or about informational or experimental ones?
For the most part, once work gets an RFC or even just an published I-D,
it also comes with a complex to be labeled as a "standard" to "throw the
book" at others; "you are not following the standard." While they are
technically wrong, it happens and it puts others in defensive position.
But it also shows why there are derivative work or why an RFC does not
get followed 100%.
I guess, if anything, if we are going to allow for faster maturity, we
probably need some guidelines (if not already in place) in how non-WG
RFC productions could influence a current WG.
I don't understand that without understanding what kind of document
you are concerned about.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf