On 10/8/2013 8:36 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
And what are the RFC numbers for the comments? If none, as I suspect,
then the comments aren't the same status as the documents--that's fine
for RFC 791 and 2460, but it is not clear that Pete's document falls
into the same class. I would argue it does not.
Unfortunately the concern you are raising has often been applied to all
sorts of IETF work. Many bits of IETF work are subject to on-going
comments and often reach the practical status of de facto -- or, in the
case of the errata mechanism, IETF de jure -- modifications to the
published document.
In fact, the line of argument you raise has frequently been lodged
against the BCP construct. Yet we keep finding BCPs useful to create.
1. Does the IETF need a modern, thorough, community-approved
statement of it's consensus model and the application of the model?
That is, both theory and practice.
So far, it looks as if the community certainly thinks we do, and
strongly agree. In fact I think we suffer greatly by not having it.
And as we've gone through multiple generations of participants, we've
tended towards reliance on catch-phrases, without a shared understanding
of their deeper meaning and specific practice. So folks invent their
own meanings as best they can. Something like Pete's draft is needed to
provide shared substance to what we mean when we talk about rough consensus.
2. Should the statement be an RFC or something more malleable (and
therefore ephemeral)?
Why would we not want something this essential to be available
through our formal publishing and archiving mechanism? To the extent
that later discussions prompt modifications, that's what the errata
mechanism is for. And eventual revision to the RFC. Unless someone
thinks that this core construct for the IETF is going to be subject to
constant and fundamental modification???
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net