On 9/23/2015 8:44 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
While I would agree with much of what you say, in my opinion RFC
4144, which was published 10 years ago this month, is, to a
significant extent, about organizational behavior.
Don, thanks for reminding us that the RFC channel has a long history of
being flexible about circulating comments on a wider variety of topics
than folks seem to think.
I believe it should matter far less whether a particular type of content
has ever been published as an RFC and far more about whether the content
is 'relevant' to the community and responsibly written. We should make a
point of erring in the direction of permission, rather than stricture,
to encourage open and diverse exploration of "relevant" issues.
And I see that the first sentence of the above paragraph is almost the
wording at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html:
The independent submission stream allows RFC publication for some
documents that are outside the official IETF/IAB/IRTF process but
are relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels
of technical and editorial quality.
(That process documents about the Independent stream emphasize
"technical" content ought to be viewed more as an unfortunate efficiency
hack that was taken when the texts were generated, than a Procrustean
stricture against 'non-technical' content.)
d/
ps. For reference, in the wonderfully formal and narrow terms that the
IETF has come to rely on, when considering matters of what it calls
'process', our draft is in fact /not/ a process document. Under
different scenarios, it might have been turned into one, but in its
current form and through the Independent Stream, it is as I earlier
described, a commentary by some folk involved in the IETF.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net