> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.
If the individual submission is approved as an Experimental RFC, does that
mean that the IETF will adopt the proposed "experiment"? If so, I don't
think this draft should be approved. (Actually, I suspect the fix is in,
but for the record ...)
The proposal seems primarily intended to deal with the following "problem".
Sometimes there are cases in which a doc is ready to become a DS, but
cannot, because of the infamous "downref rule", which states that no DS can
normatively reference a PS.
The proposal leaves the downref rule in place, but allows it to be waived if
the WG is willing to approve derogatory text about the referenced
technology:
"A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the
reference is to a document of a lower maturity level, that some
caution should be used since it may be less stable than the
document from which it is being referenced,"
Frankly, I think this wavier procedure is outrageous, and entirely
unacceptable. The fact The fact that the referenced document has not gone
through some bureaucratic process does not mean that it is any less stable,
or that any more caution is required in its use. Inserting this derogatory
language about technology which may be well-proven and widely deployed will
be extremely misleading to the industry.
I think that any rule which requires us to insert false and misleading
statements in the documents should be strongly opposed.
Even worse:
"The IESG may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used"
Great, not only is the WG required to denigrate its own technology, but the
IESG is given free rein to insert whatever derogatory remarks they feel like
putting in.
Of course, we'll be told not to worry, since:
"If members of the community consider either the downward reference or
the annotation text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised
at any time in the document life cycle, just as with any other text
in the document."
Great. Another useless thing to argue about in the WG, and another useless
thing to argue about with the IESG.
There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment
disheartening.
For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our
processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the downref rule
or we don't. If we want to experiment, let's experiment with eliminating
the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it.
The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards
process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the
current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but
a distraction.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
