Do we now require change control on specifications we use?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 04 December 2007 16:42 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izar8-00075p-9G; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:42:46 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izar6-00075g-V7 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:42:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izar6-00075W-LY for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:42:44 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izar6-0004kH-Be for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:42:44 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id EE5BF1C0176 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:42:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7311C0135 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:42:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE10458ECBE for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:42:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:42:43 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
Message-ID: <20071204164243.GA23212@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-5-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang-00.txt says:

> o From a process perspective, the IETF lacks any IETF change control
> and real input into the update process for XSD.

And draft-lengyel-why-yang-00 says:

> and we can enjoy long term stability and full chance control in the
> IETF, which also exercises change control over NETCONF.

That's a completely new argument for me, and a strange one. AFAIK,
there is no general rule in the IETF that the IETF must have "change
control" over the specifications it uses. Otherwise, we would never
used standards from very closed SDOs like ISO or IEEE.

And Netconf does not follow this practice, anyway, since it uses XML,
hardly a standard that the IETF controls.

Asking for "change control" here really looks like a modern form of
"NIH".