Re: [Asdf] on ASDF cycling at internet-draft

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Michael, have a chat with Mark Nottingham: this is what httpbis did and
quic is doing, and it worked very effectively for them.  There are benefits
to having a version in a PS RFC, then making the next version a new PS RFC
that Obsoletes the first, and so on.  There are also benefits to hashing
things out during document development of the first PS RFC.  The working
group will have to weigh those, and see which side comes up heavier.  Mark
will have good input for that decision, I think.

Barry

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:18 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> Barry, I'm uncomfortable with a plan to have more than implementation draft
>
> as a WIP.   While it seems that this where the IETF has evolved to, I'm
>
> really not sure that planning it this way is in the right spirit.
>
>
>
> I would significantly prefer to iterate at PS, but the hurdles seem higher
>
> than ever.  I'd love to be wrong!
>
> Maybe someone has some 3933 process experiment ideas that could be done.
>
>
>
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     >> 1) What would you call a "release" here?
>
>
>
>     > An Internet-Draft that is specifically marked as such (often called
>
>     > “implementation draft” in other groups).
>
>
>
>     > The intention would be to reach a periodic milestone where OneDM
> people
>
>     > and ASDF agree that a specific I-D is useful as a basis for further
>
>     > OneDM work, e.g., by using that I-D for validating models in the
> OneDM
>
>     > playground and convergence processes, and by ecosystem tool builders
>
>     > modifying their tools to target that I-D in their conversion
> processes
>
>     > (which is what enables breaking changes).
>
>
>
>     > This could be done in a tick-tock style, with a feature I-D and then
> a
>
>     > period of stabilizing that, so -02 could be SDF 1.1, -04 1.2, and so
>
>     > on.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>     >> Should publishing 1.0 ASAP be a goal, or should we just do 1.1?
>
>
>
>     > 1.0 was “published” as an Internet-Draft.  I don’t think we should
> aim
>
>     > for RFC status until we have at least a handful of SDOs that have put
>
>     > the majority of their relevant models through the process.  1.0 is
>
>     > intended to be quickly superseded by 1.1, and that might happen a
>
>     > couple more times until returns start to diminish.
>
>
>
>     > This rapid iterative process may be a bit unusual for IETF.
>
>     > I’d assume we can stabilize the SDF core at 1.3 or 1.4 enough to go
> for RFC.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>