+1 I also disagree with some of the statements in the proposed text. I do not think it is worth the effort to come up with consensus text.
Russ On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Mykyta, > > I think the draft is fine without this addition, which contains some > statements > that I disagree with. I don't think analysis is needed; this all ancient > history > anyway. > > Regards > Brian > > On 2011-07-13 04:50, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Hello, >> >> As Russ agreed to sponsor this document on I-D submission cut-off date, >> I did make only some minor changed proposed by him during AD >> evaluation. However I thought the document would be incomplete without >> analysis, so after LC I propose to add the following sub-section in the >> draft: >> >>> 3.4. Analysis and Results >>> >>> IONs were intended to serve as a means to document issues related to >>> procedures used by IETF or other parties, but to be more stable as a >>> simple web page and to have a more lightweight procedures for >>> approval than Best Current Practice (BCP) or other sort of RFC. Even >>> though such middle-ground approach might be quite useful, it also >>> brings a number of complexities and negative effects, which are >>> described below. >>> >>> First of all, IONs were mainly scoped to IETF procedural questions. >>> A number of IONs were published defining procedures used by IETF >>> community, such as ion-ad-sponsoring. However, it should be noted >>> that the formal procedure of IONs approval, laid out in RFC 4693 >>> [RFC4693] did not imply community involvement, unlike one for BCP or >>> other IETF Stream RFC. Even though RFC 4693 intended IONs to cover >>> issues not sufficient for documenting in BCP, this regulation was >>> often overlooked. This might have resulted in community non- >>> acceptance of such procedures, partial or full, if IONs were adopted >>> on the persistent basis. >>> >>> Moreover, as IONs were lower in the hierarchy of IETF documents that >>> RFCs, published RFCs may override what mentioned in a particular ION >>> (whereas a published RFC may change already established procedures), >>> which might result in them not being sufficiently followed, creating >>> documentation conflicts. >>> >>> Several IONS were published that describe the procedures used by IESG >>> or its members internally, such as ion-discuss-criteria or ion-tsv- >>> alt-cc. Such material is obviously more appropriate for publication >>> as IESG Statements, which are also meant to be quite stable when >>> published and are approved at IESG's discretion. >>> >>> A number of IONs were published covering different IAOC issues. Such >>> IONs included ion-execd-tasks and ion-subpoena. However, even though >>> IAOC works tightly with IETF, they have an ability to publish such >>> material on their site - <http://iaoc.ietf.org/>. >>> >>> A one ION - ion-procdocs - was a reference guide to the IWTF Process >>> documents. An other ION - ion-2026-practice - provided the criticism >>> and operational experience on RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Both this >>> documents are fine as web pages, since the material contained in it >>> might change quickly and often. >>> >>> ion-ion-format and ion-ion-store were published for the purpose of >>> the IONs series itself and were discarded upon experiment closure. >>> They are not analyzed here. >>> >>> The aforementioned facts claim that IONs were less useful than the >>> equivalent information published in other way, and should be >>> abandoned, as proposed by Section 4 of RFC 4693 [RFC4693]. >> >> In order not to request the 2nd LC after this text is included, I'd like >> to seek community feedback on it during this Last Call. >> >> Thanks, >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev >> >> 12.07.2011 17:39, The IESG wrote: >>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >>> the following document: >>> - 'Report on the Experiment with IETF Operational Notes (IONs)' >>> <draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06.txt> as an Informational RFC >>> >>> [ . . . ] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
