Pete,
On 01/28/2014 12:56 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 1/27/14 7:55 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
The Independent RFC Stream would seem more appropriate.
Well, if you run a document through the RFC Stream publication
process, it doesn't get the same level/type of review as does running
it through the IETF. At least in theory.
If it were running through a WG and the WG wanted to publish it, I'd be
much more likely to believe that it was getting a better level/type of
review than running it through the ISE. But just getting a Last Call as
an AD-sponsored document? I have my doubts.
And though Lars is right that we've been darn inconsistent about it,
2026 does say that we're not supposed to be doing that:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.3
Which also says:
"In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
easily recognizable."
Pretty modern eh;-) And hightly likely to be meaningful
to readers.
More relevant though, the same section implies correctly
that it'd be a bad plan to let people easily "circumvent
the Internet Standards Process" and I would argue that
doing an IETF LC is a fine way for that be tested. About
as good as the ISE asking the IESG probably on balance
though the trade offs differ.
I suspect we'll be better off just not getting bothered
until such time as someone takes on the always-gargantuan
task of updating this bit of 2026.
The ISE can always send a message to the IETF list saying, "I'd like the
IETF to have a look at this document and send comments." I think it is
almost identically as effective as sending out an IETF Last Call for an
AD-sponsored Informational document.
I can imagine times where an AD-sponsored Informational document is
useful, but I'm guessing there are far less than the number of times we
do it.
I'm not at all clear why its useful to be bothered about
that. Can you explain how we all win?
I've no idea what's in draft-yourtchenko, but I do not
have any general problem with something that could be sent
to the ISE being handled in this way. And nor should any
of us I reckon, unless we prefer pointless process over
getting-stuff-done, in the absence of a particular issue
with the draft.
S.
pr