Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Fred Baker wrote:
>  From my perspective, the best approach involves keeping the general 
> case simple. The documents that have been transferred outside the IETF 
> in the past five years is a single digit number, a tenth of a percent of 
> all RFCs if not a smaller fraction. From my perspective, the simplest 
> solution to the transfer issue is to ask the people relevant to a 
> document for which transfer has been suggested whether they have an 
> issue with transferring it, rather than asking every document author his 
> or her opinion on the vast majority of documents, which will never be 
> transferred. 


+1 for simplicity, pragmatics, stability, narrowness of impact, and probably 
"legality".

A number of the comments, so far, appear to hinge on a rather basic cost/benefit 
model that is clearly quite different from what the proposal is based.  I 
suspect that difference comes from a different sense of the problem, per John 
Klensin's posting.

My reference to "legality" is based on a view of the proposal which sees it as 
having individual submitters essentially say "I am required to get permission 
and I have not gotten it".  That's an admission of guilt, which seems like a 
very bad thing to admit and formally document, particularly for an issue 
involving the law.  And if you don't think that's what the proposal calls for, 
please explain, because I don't think my interpretation is all that creative.


I am also struck by the proposal's noting:

> This situation has halted the progression of some Internet-Drafts and  
> interrupted the publication of some RFCs.  

This means that we have a crisis which is stopping productive work, yet the 
crisis appears to be caused by a faulty new requirement, rather than by the 
situation that the document seeks to correct.  In other words, remove the new 
requirement and we no longer have a crisis.  We have an issue to pursue -- the 
same one that prompted the new requirement -- but no crisis.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf