Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi Ran, I have specific responses in-line, but I'll start with a summary of sorts for less patient readers. IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal with "exceptional circumstances" but fails to provide the tools to execute that responsibility. After 27 years in governm

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 9/14/09 10:13 AM, "RJ Atkinson" wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 2009, at 10:00, Polk, William T. wrote: >> IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal >> with >> "exceptional circumstances" but fails to provide the tools to >> execute that >> responsibility. After 27 years i

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 14 Sep 2009, at 10:00, Polk, William T. wrote: IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal with "exceptional circumstances" but fails to provide the tools to execute that responsibility. After 27 years in government, I have a lot of experience with assignment of

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 RJ Atkinson wrote: ... > BOTTOM LINE: > There seems to be clear consensus amongst folks outside > the IESG that (1) there is no current problem and (2) > no process change is warranted to make IESG notes mandatory > on non-IETF-track document

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Earlier, Tim Polk wrote (in part): % And are we really helping anyone by not clarifying the % relationship between the document and other RFCs? % % Shouldn't we provide this information as a % service to the reader? Tim, I like you, but your reasoning on this topic comes across as very confused

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the >> perception. > > Well, Wikipedia (which IMO is primarily useful as a repository for >

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Stephan Wenger > > > For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in > > staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using > > the RFC series is IMHO contradicte

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 2009-09-10 03:53, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Donald Eastlake > > > The burden of proof rests on those ... who wish to change the > > independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to > > something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems >

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 9/9/09 11:09 AM, "Robert Elz" wrote: > Date:Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:53:42 -0400 > From:"Polk, William T." > Message-ID: > > | IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not > | similar to IEEE Transactions on Networking or the NY Times

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi Robert, On 9/9/09 8:54 AM, "Robert Elz" wrote: > Date:Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400 > From:Sam Hartman > Message-ID: > > | Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that > | I disagreed fairly strongly with that and argued why I be

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Olaf, Let me suggest tuning this a bit, with the understanding that what I'm about to suggest lies well within current procedures, RFC 5620, etc. --On Wednesday, September 09, 2009 09:11 +0200 Olaf Kolkman wrote: >... > But there is a nugget in the introduction of a last call: I > think that th

RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:20 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > for example,

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > for example, the second and third. Based on that latter set, I could > claim that "THE" perception is that the RFC series is I am at the best of times uneasy with universal quantifiers, and certainly when talking about THE belief

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the perception. Well, Wikipedia ... The fourth link from Google in response to, "What is an RFC?" says ... So even if those pages go on

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> From: Stephan Wenger > For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in > staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using > the RFC series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF > over the RFC series). If I understa

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi Dave, I agree with your second observation. It may well be that the current RFC editor model has not *yet* caused a pragmatic problem. I stand to my first assessment, as originally formulated. The main issue is: should the IETF be pro-active on these matters, or not. For the IETF as an organ

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the > perception. Well, Wikipedia (which IMO is primarily useful as a repository for finding out what "everyone knows") has this first sentence in its description of t

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Stephan Wenger wrote: This *perception* is important. And changing it means changing the *perception* of a large number of people, for very little value except honoring a 40 year old institution. That's not a value proposition I can easily support. If the IETF is *perceived* as the owner and

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi, As it has been pointed out here often, the RFC series is more than just the document numbering scheme for IETF standards. However, if you attend a marketing gathering, a random CS conference, a non-IETF standardization meeting, or even the IETF plenary, a majority of people (probably a large

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> From: Donald Eastlake > The burden of proof rests on those ... who wish to change the > independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to > something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems > entirely gratuitous without any historically de

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Robert Elz wrote: | The better question is, if IEEE was distributing the output of the IETF in | its series of standards publications You're operating under the mistaken impression that the RFC series is IETF standards - it isn't - some of he RFCs are IETF standards, others are other IETF

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Date:Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:53:42 -0400 From:"Polk, William T." Message-ID: | IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not | similar to IEEE Transactions on Networking or the NY Times. I am not sure | that there is really a close analog

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Sam, The burden of proof rests on those like you who wish to change the independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems entirely gratuitous without any historically demonstrated need. Donald On Wed, Sep 9, 20

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> "Robert" == Robert Elz writes: Robert> Then note that this is exactly the same ralationship that Robert> the RFC editor should have with the IETF. I disagree for reasons I have previously stated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https:

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Date:Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400 From:Sam Hartman Message-ID: | Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that | I disagreed fairly strongly with that and argued why I believed that | the IETF needs a special role to attach a note to

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> "Olaf" == Olaf Kolkman writes: Olaf> On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community >> that is last called. Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus. >> However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for th

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community that is last called. Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus. However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for the IAB chair to do the consensus call, that's fine with me.

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Polk, William T. wrote: I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the IESG and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the proposed IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an exceptional case meriting a note and (2) if the text ac

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Olaf, I meant the IETF community. Since the note would exist to clarify the relationship with documents developed by the IETF community, that seems the right one to evaluate whether a note is needed. As to who calls the consensus, that is a tricky one. How about the IAB chair? Tim On 9/8/09

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

In my opinion, 3932bis is internally inconsistent about IESG notes. This document expressly directs the IESG to reserve IESG notes for exceptional cases, but then leaves the decision on whether the note should be included to the RFC Editor: >In exceptional cases, when the r

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community that is last called. Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus. However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for the IAB chair to do the consensus call, that's fine with me. If we do that we'd need to make it clear how this inte

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Tuesday, September 08, 2009 16:36 +0200 Olaf Kolkman wrote: > On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote: > >> I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: >> if the IESG >> and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last >> call the proposed >> IESG

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote: I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the IESG and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the proposed IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an exceptional case meri

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

"SM" wrote: Some people interpret RFCs as Internet Standards even though the document contains "It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." The document also says "Request for Comments," which is not even remotely true -- it represents the end of a long reviewing and commenting

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi John - I'm convinced we (the internet community) still need an true independent submissions path. I'm no longer convinced that the path should or can lead through the RFC editor. In the far past, the RFC Editor was a true independent entity - part of the internet community, participating

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > Joel M. Halpern wrote: >... >> Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this is >> not a change in practice.  This is the practice we have had for more than >> the last 15 years.  If, for Independent Submissions, it is that

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:48 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > John, > >> I suggest that it is not so much a conflict with the ongoing >> work of an IETF WG, but a flat technical error. > > And I would in general agree with you, but in this case the > stuff was already deployed very widel

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Wednesday, September 02, 2009 17:23 -0400 Russ Housley wrote: > I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the question that > Jari asked. While changes to the Independent Stream can be > discussed, that seems like rfc4846bis, not this document ... > > Several people have said that the

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Richard Barnes wrote: What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with the expectations of our customers. One of the historical items of note is that this supposed problem has been present for about 20 years. In other words, nothing has changed. For example, it prompt

RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> From: > Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the timely > appeal path. I agree - this proposal: >> if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting specific changes to >> a document ... and the ISE and authors decide to not incorporate those >

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

John, I suggest that it is not so much a conflict with the ongoing work of an IETF WG, but a flat technical error. And I would in general agree with you, but in this case the stuff was already deployed very widely, and the purpose of the publication was to document existing practice. I agre

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:55 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: >... > In particular, when I have been an AD it has always been a > pleasure to work with the RFC Editor, and they have always > made exactly the right decisions. In my honest opinion of > course. And I'd rather count on that and

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi Richard, At 20:31 02-09-2009, Richard Barnes wrote: Stated at more length: What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical meaning, RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as documents that have th

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

John, we've had repeated examples over the years of the IESG and/or individual ADs abusing the independent submission process and/or the RFC Editor and zero examples of the RFC Editor handling a request from the IESG unreasonably or arbitrarily. I don't want to open a discussion about who is m

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote: We simply require that, if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting specific changes to a document ("specific changes" including, but not limited to, so-called "IESG Notes") and the ISE and authors decide to not incorporate those proposed

RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

ern.com; > b...@estacado.net > Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory > nature of IESG notes > > > > --On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200 > pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote: > > > Joe

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> From: Richard Barnes > What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with > the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical meaning, > RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as documents that have > the been reviewed and approved, to

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

In fact, I do not think the presence or absence of a note means what you describe. First, remember the Independent Submission do get reviewed. They do not get IETF review. But they do get technical review by senior technical participants in this community. This review can be thought of, as

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Being a relatively short-term IETF participant, I lack the history that many on this list have, but since Jari asked for comments, I'll provide some. Stated briefly, I agree with Steve Kent, Adam Roach, Ben Campbell, and others that it makes sense to have IESG notes be mandatory for the ISE t

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> From: Dave CROCKER > The IESG is not, and must not be, the sole repository for responsible > decision-making in the IETF Couldn't agree more. A division of powers, with checks and balances, are a critical part of any organizational system, IMO. Noel ___

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Sam Hartman wrote: Russ, I think that it is absolutely critical ... Sam, However, the IESG is not the IETF. This is the single-most important statement in your note. "Absolutely critical" is strong language, but is not warranted by 20 years of experience or any other empirical basis.

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Wednesday, September 02, 2009 13:53 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: > John, in principle, I would be delighted by this option if > you made a few more changes to make the RFC process more > accountable: > > 1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by > some sort of nomcom/comm

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the question that Jari asked. While changes to the Independent Stream can be discussed, that seems like rfc4846bis, not this document ... Several people have said that the RFC Editor already has the authority we are discussing here. Sadly, it is no

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Sam, On 2009-09-03 05:53, Sam Hartman wrote: ... > 1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of > nomcom/community process. That nomcom could of course draw from a broader > community than the IETF as a whole I'm certainly in favour of transparency in the process

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

RFC 5620 calls for the appointment of an RFC Series Advisory Group, to be appointed by the IAB, and a Independent Submissions Stream Editorial Board (ISSEB for now), which serves at the pleasure of the ISE. This was reviewed and approved by the community. I presume with cognizance of the existin

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

John, in principle, I would be delighted by this option if you made a few more changes to make the RFC process more accountable: 1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of nomcom/community process. That nomcom could of course draw from a broader community t

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

> "John" == John C Klensin writes: John> However, if your concern is really to make sure that there John> is a timely appeal path, I have a suggestion that might be John> acceptable to everyone without causing unfortunate John> side-effects. We simply require that, if the ISE

RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200 pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote: > Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the >> editor and say "stop doing that." There is no equivalent >> process if we reverse the structure. > > Yes, there is. If the IESG wo

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Russ, I think that it is absolutely critical that the IETF be able to attach a note to an RFC and that this note not simply be a recommendation. We can believe all we want that the IETF stream is just one stream and that all other streams are independent. However, the RFC process is very tightly

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 16:37 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > Robert, > >> the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of >> independent submissions > > Right, and we are not. > >> - the reason the review was even permitted ... was to allow >> work that was submitted inde

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

All, I value the independence of the Independent Submission stream and IRTF Stream from the IETF (including the IESG). Indeed, both the RFC series and the acceptance of independent RFCs long pre-date even the existence of the IETF. I prefer that the IESG NOT have or assert the authority to mand

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Date:Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:37:31 +0300 From:Jari Arkko Message-ID: <4a9d239b.7070...@piuha.net> | Right, and we are not. That is very good to hear. I haven't been watching much of recent IETF happenings (last few years) so I explicitly make no comment about anythin

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Robert, the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of independent submissions Right, and we are not. - the reason the review was even permitted ... was to allow work that was submitted independently but which was directly in the same area as IETF work to be merged, and all

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Date:Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:29:26 +0300 From:Jari Arkko Message-ID: <4a9bd036.1000...@piuha.net> | And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a | sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG | note is just a recom

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something that is always applied to the publis

RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: > If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the editor and say > "stop doing that." There is no equivalent process if we reverse the > structure. Yes, there is. If the IESG would request/recommend a particularly bad IESG note, this decision can be appealed just l

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Adam, So, to be clear, the question you have raised has to do with the difference between: "The IESG may choose to add an IESG note to an Independent Submission..." and: "The IESG may choose to request the addition of an IESG note to an Independent Submission..." Right? Yes

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 2009-8-31, at 19:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote: But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs. Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even from IETF WGs, carry big warnings "THIS IS NOT AN IETF STANDARD." FWIW, this was exactly what I proposed a w

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi, On 2009-8-31, at 18:34, Adam Roach wrote: In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form , there is going to be a strong presumption on their part that the document was produced by the IETF. In the cases that this presumption is in

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

The scope already says that the IESG is only supposed to comment on the relationship to existing work. When the comments are on that topic, there has rarely been an issue. (The one related difficulty is when the IESG has asked for reasonable delays, to let a working group get its product out,

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Making the IESG note mandatory, even if that required IETF agreement, would essentially give the IETf veto over the Independent stream. The IESG would simply propose a note so extreme that no author would accept it on their document. Gi

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Making the IESG note mandatory, even if that required IETF agreement, would essentially give the IETf veto over the Independent stream. The IESG would simply propose a note so extreme that no author would accept it on their document. Given that I have seen proposed notes almost that bad in th

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] +1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part. I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF document. Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document relates to other IETF work in some way?

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 2009-09-01 13:14, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: >>> Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. >

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote: On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technic

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel, I agree that IESG notes should be rare, but primarily because independent stream submissions should be rare :-). Long ago, when I served on the IAB, we grappled with this problem, and failed to find a good solution. Despite what we say about RFC status and origin markings, the public s

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > >> Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission >> stream. >> >> We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical. >> >> I don't think it is appropriate for

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Monday, August 31, 2009 16:29 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > I would like to get some further input from the community on > this draft. >... > And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like > to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any > exceptional IESG note is

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi Jari, At 06:29 31-08-2009, Jari Arkko wrote: And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something that is always applied to the published RF

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e., retain existing practice regarding IESG notes). Cheers, Andy On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >>    The doc

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Jari Arkko wrote: However, in this case: if you have a general comment on 3932bis, please post to the Last Call thread. If you want to answer my specific question about the optional/mandatory nature of the IESG note, please respond to this thread. So, to be clear, the question you have raised

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Dave, The current question is about IESG Notes. We ought to restrict postings on this thread to that question. Yes. As always, before a draft is actually approved we appreciate getting all kinds of feedback on it. Particularly if there's a serious problem somewhere. Of course, when a Last

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: If every document needs this marking, ... If this line of discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen on a separate thread, because I believe it has nothing to do with the current text, proposal, or concern. As noted, it is opening a very old -- and I believe ver

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Monday, August 31, 2009 13:20 -0500 Adam Roach wrote: > Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't >> supposed to be subject to community review. > > Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we > would prominently mark the docum

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

If every document needs this marking, then that is a matter for headers and boilerplates. I can understand arguing about how we mark documents. If our headers and boilerplate are not sufficient, then we should renegotiate them. I personally think that they are about as good as we can get. Bu

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: Wed try very hard to make it clear to folks that there is a difference between standards track documents and non-standards track documents. Independent Stream documents are not standards track documents. And I agree that there is an issue of the community not distinguish

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:30 -0700 Bob Braden wrote: > Your argument seems to me to be the latest version of the > 30-year old discussion about whether all RFCs are standards. >... Not quite 30 years, because it took us a while to start using terms like "standard", and even longer to get t

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't supposed to be subject to community review. Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we would prominently mark the documents to indicate that they have not been subjected to community review? I

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

If we really feel that the current approach does not make non-standards clear enough, then we should address that for all experimental or informational documents. It is basically unrelated to the Independent Stream issue. With regard to documents that are alternatives to existing IETF work,

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of whether a technical n

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Brian Rosen wrote: Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical. It seems important to begin a discussion with true facts, and the statement immediately above is false. To quote Harald's

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Adam Roach wrote: While the presence of alternate streams of publication doesn't bother me, I think they need to be automatically and prominently marked as being something other than an IETF document. In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of whether a technical note is, or is not appropriate to be included in a document.

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: The documented rules and practice has long been that with regard to Independent Submissions the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the RFC Editor (soon to be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the result. ... Based on having seen a number o

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

If I understand your note properly, your primary concern is that folks will think that Independent submission are IETF products. This is a fair concern. But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs. Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even fr

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and > that they remain recommendations to the ISE. +1 to that, S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Before commenting on the question, I wish to comment slightly on the exposition. While I understand that some IESG members were surprised that the text brought to them treated IESG notes as a recommendation to the RFC Editor, such surprise gap in historical information rather than a change. T

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

I have a serious concern about the impact of this decision and the perception of RFCs by the community that uses the output of the IETF. The IETF process has a number of very strong safeguards in place to ensure that the protocols we publish have certain levels of quality and safety built in,

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

John, Jari - I was one of the folks expressing the concern Jari points to below, and it's a small facet of a larger worry I have about a potential (and I think likely) unintended consequence of the header/boilerplate changes. To capture that in this thread (with apologies for walking throug

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:59 -0400 Brian Rosen wrote: > Following a request to look at this document, and with only a > cursory look at the archives, I'm confused. > > The note is always intended to be included in the document > itself, right? > > Is this change designed to compel, as o

  1   2   >