Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:13 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 31-Mar-21 01:58, Lars Eggert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-3-30, at 15:07, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> That’s my point.  Before we do a BCP45 update, perhaps we should ask if
> we should go farther, and take on Mark’s draft as well in this context, and
> then consider what should be done.  I like the idea of facilitated
> conversation.  I think it could be fun (a term not usually associated with
> the IETF list) but that’s me.  I’m sure others have their own ideas.
> >
> > I'd prefer to do a minimal update to BCP45 soon, to bring its charter
> back in line with its current use.
>
> Yes please. And I think it can be dispatched fairly rapidly as an
> AD-sponsored draft, for which I hope Lars can find an AD ;-).
>
> >
> > We can always revise it again, when there is consensus on more
> fundamental changes.
>
> Agreed, and that needs a much deeper analysis. And IMNSHO there are many
> much more important process issues to resolve than the occasional unruly
> threads on ietf@. Just to pick one at random, what can we do to prevent
> something like Cluster 238 ever happening again?
>

This is a bit hard to answer without having a clearer statement
of what went wrong with C238.

I could imagine several objections here:

- We shouldn't have projects which require changes to large
  chunks of the protocol suite.

- We shouldn't have to publish all the documents in those
  projects simultaneously.

- It's hard for the RPC to manage the simultaneous publication
  of all those documents.

- Something else?

It seems like each of these might have different solutions.

-Ekr