On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:06 AM Daniel K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lately, I thought of it as a detail of the process that failure > reporting was not reviewed at the same time as the other documents. I > judged it to be likely, based on the several emails emphasizing how many > pages was available for a telechat review, that it had to wait until > later when more pages were available in that review process. > I think a common notion is that when a document moves up in status (this one is going from Independent Stream Informational to IETF Stream Proposed Standard), we are expected to drop things that are not in use. There's a lot of argument being presented here that failure reports are generated by almost nobody. Deciding whether to drop them seems on target to me. For these reasons, I believe submitting failure reporting for review > would be the path of least resistance going forward to deprecate RFC > 7489, and publishing this trio of documents as its successor > specifications. > The problem is that there's no longer a working group. We might blame me for that; it sure seemed to me like the WG that existed was out of energy and going in circles, and so I pressed it to get done by a deadline. Failure reporting, if we do want it, now needs a venue, the options being (a) reopen the WG, (b) get an AD to sponsor it (I wouldn't), or (c) publish it via the ISE (outside of the IETF). None of those involve "least resistance" to me. The minimal effort lies in what were presented as options 2 and 3. I'm relatively certain that if we do decide to reopen the WG to answer this question and do the work, we're going to need new chairs and a very tight new charter with some solid milestones and some serious commitment from the advocates that want to see the work done. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
