ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: History of protocol discussion or process in WG

2013-02-05 06:58:22
The best engineering practice while making new technologies/procedures is
that they look/read into all world current, past, and
future related-knowledge  [1] [2], all information phases are important for
producing reasonable; I-Ds, RFCs, standards, BCP, etc.

In IETF meetings and discussions there is not way we can ignore the past
discussions [3][4]. The IETF is documenting/recording meetings (not
reporting attendance size [5]), I-D versions related to RFCs, discussions
on the IETF lists, but I think that each WG in IETF after a period of time
(about 20 years) can work out an I-D of issues related to RFCs that will be
read by IETF next generation engineers (hopefully written by WG RFCs
editors before we loose them).

From my experience in reading IETF WGs lists, some authors and WG
discussions don't go into reasons of update version of I-Ds, but the reason
is only known if a participant asked for it. Some I-Ds authors discuss the
change outside the IETF, that is why I suiggested [6].

Please note that many I-Ds and RFC are not perfect described, understood or
interpreted [7], because while discussing an I-D in meetings or on
lists the interpretation changes by IETF participants (not all readers of
that I-D). Therefore, I think there is a need for more historic RFCs in
IETF as suggested before [8], but in both procedural and technical
IETF works/efforts. I am happy to find [9] in IETF documenting processes
(need to be updated) and hoping to see more past engineering helpful
experience in I-Ds.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76967.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg14896.html

[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76941.html

[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76942.html

[5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74755.html

[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74750.html

[7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76940.html

[8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76040.html

[9] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/

My opinion to make the IETF life easier and linked :)

AB