Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9413A120D4B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOEyI90j4lFB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cadetblue.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (cadetblue.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3BED120D3A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1503C0807; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a93.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-169-194.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.169.194]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 85FC93C0A77; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a93.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:16:53 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Juvenile-Descriptive: 5dee05a2541a1e3c_1573157812960_1704253501
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573157812960:3006616563
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573157812960
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a93.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a93.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B81802B3; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TFVCX/tYcGZWdN NIAngBawmBvBs=; b=AFNP8pMRRXPl4gfP7Q4aSyC7bLVUnUqd2C22S/0TBkNRvW CSfHF/xIw5LZt+BhLFYJy2vtrh6IIIntbi36fTmjek6f1v4Tk2N8sSQfvHAFmVny pDW0JRqtb05rLw0m3cmQNgebd8aq6UxZ76pmiqCoMlzwDoskDPY+XmGKWH/64=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a93.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFACC802AF; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:16:42 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a93
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Message-ID: <20191107201642.GG12148@localhost>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <10457.1573157263@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10457.1573157263@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5r1KQNnEN5Ig0izG8Z_0QuclgVg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:16:56 -0000

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
>     > Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard
>     > RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review
>     > requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD .
> 
>     > Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
>     > in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
>     > a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
>     > right. And it scales.
> 
> I was not a fan of the proposal to designate an Internet-Draft as a stable
> document, because I felt that it was basically creating a new level of
> document status. (Another hurdle)
> 
> Your proposal is almost the same, but I like it because I feel that instead
> of adding a hurdle, it is removing one.
> 
> Would you consider if these new documents are *RFC*s or, would you consider
> if we could make a new document series for these documents? I would suggest
> that it become the *Proposed Standard* series.  That is, we'd change our
> first step to not be an *RFC*.

Now this is appealing.  Perception counts for a lot.  "RFCxxxx" == "Standard"
in many minds.  So giving PS docs a PSRFCxxxx w/o a corresponding RFCxxxx
would help a lot.

> I believe that this would solve the problems that the stable-document
> proponents were trying to create, while not adding a new step to the process.
> 
> I would want such RFCPS or WGPS, etc. to go through the RPC.
> This fixes all the english, references, etc. issues, and of course causes
> IANA assignments.
> 
> Upon being finished processing, the exact XML would be returned to the WG to
> collect errata, interop experience and clarification, setting things up for
> the "bis" document that would then be ready for Internet Standard (RFC).
> 
> This also synchronizes our notion of what an RFC is with what the industry
> thinks is an RFC.

+1.

Nico
--