Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Arguably, this decision, and our reasoning around it, is important for 
archival purposes.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/27/2020 6:52 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The problem I have is with not publishing as an RFC.   I don't think
>> people should have to dig through email archives (which are not as
>> reliably archived as the RFC series)  to find out what the whole IETF
>> process is, or even the evolution history of the IETF process.   I think
>> even brief deviations from the process should be archived the same as
>> any other changes to the process.
> 
> There's not a lot of "digging through" when we're posting it to
> ietf-announce (fairly low-volume, and where things such as NomCom
> announcements and other appointments, RFP decisions, and other Very
> Important IETF-related decisions are posted).  I think, personally,
> that the kinds of exceptions we're talking about here are pretty much
> equally important to, say, the announcement of the NomCom chair, the
> NomCom's decisions about whom to appoint to the IESG and IAB and LLC
> Board, the IAB's appointment of ISOC BoT directors, and the like.  The
> ietf-announce list is, in fact, where we archive all of that stuff.
> None of it goes into RFCs.
> 
>> But I'll flip this on its head: why did we suddenly become so concerned
>> about the overhead of publishing a single RFC, when as far as I can tell
>> we've had a pretty low bar for RFC publication all along?
> 
> Because (1) there is significant overhead, and publishing them does
> get in the way of publishing other RFCs (including clearing out
> Cluster 238), and (2) the RFCs are an archival document series, which
> we would LIKE to keep to things of actual, long-term importance.
> Historical information is (and should be) available elsewhere.
> 
> Barry
>