--On Tuesday, 28 January, 2014 06:58 -0600 Spencer Dawkins at
IETF <spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
If we can give reviewers a clue about what we hope they are
looking for, we're more likely to get the results we hope for.
Of course, one of the long-time characteristics of the
Independent Submission system is the ability to get
tightly-focused reviews from people with relevant experience.
Is there any chance that, rather than continuing this discussion
on the IETF list to the point of general exhaustion, the IESG
and ISE (and maybe some RSAG members) could sit down in London
and produce some general guidelines about how to allocate such
categories as...
(1) Corporate or similar specs, proposed to be documented in the
RFC Series for the information of the community.
(2) Documents considered in a WG that fail to get traction or
that are overtaken by events but that don't get strong
opposition within the WG.
(3) Documents considered by a WG that don't get approval, either
because the WG finds series defects or because it selected a
different path or set of alternatives.
(4) Documents clearly appropriate for IETF work but for which no
existing WG is available and appropriate and for which there is
little enough controversy that setting up a WG is not worth the
trouble.
(5) Documents that are not relevant to the Internet going
forward but for which publication appears to have significant
historical value.
(6) Documents that may be important or useful for the network
but that do not directly relate to the sorts of work the IETF is
doing (or has the institutional competence to do).
(7) Documents that affect IETF process but for which there is no
consensus for forming a WG or processing in other ways.
(8) Documents whose purpose is to create an IANA registration
under "specification required" provisions of some existing
protocol.
There is probably a longer list, and some of those categories
overlap. I'd be opposed to firm rules because, as we usually
discover about such things, there are always edge cases and
judgment calls. But, if agreement could be reached on some
general guidelines and maybe even presented in a plenary to
inform the community and get comments, it would probably be a
big help to all concerned.
john