Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 09 August 2008 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DB73A6DD7; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C233A6DD6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i0KMzFrLfD8N for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E573A6DCB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KRtCj-00094a-Sa; Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:30:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:30:16 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Message-ID: <46FE4022D7A994D15EA0F360@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <489DC3E0.3000202@dcrocker.net>
References: <97789FA162BD4EEA9E668BD21E372BAD@BertLaptop> <489DC3E0.3000202@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Bert, I want to reinforce Dave's comments and perhaps carry them a bit further. If the ID-checklist were just the general guidance that I believe it started out to be, the distinctions I suggest below would probably be unnecessary. But we've seen recently that there are very few steps between having a list and having everything on that list become rigid, mechanically-applied, requirements. --On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 09:20 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote: > Bert, et al, > > Something that might help further discussions quite a bit is > considering annotation and re-organization of the document, to > clarify some basic distinctions. > > For example, labeling the bits that are based on IETF > standards rules versus the bits that are based on IESG > requirements? Equally, what pertains to documentation > standards versus what pertains to technical/protocol issues? Many of the bits that "pertain to documentation requirements" are IESG interpretations of RFC Editor guidelines. The RFC Editor has traditionally been much more flexible about their rules than recent trends in the IESG have been. Even when the rules come from the IESG, it would be useful to better distinguish between firm requirements (e.g., the IPR boilerplate) and guidance (e.g., things to which one should either conform or expect to have to explain, convincingly, why not). > The document has evolved into a possibly disorganized mixture > of these and last month's discussions was challenged to > separate issues, I think. > > This kind of change would not be modification of the Checklist > semantics, but would add clarity to what is currently there. But it is precisely the semantics that I think are at issue. This is less what is in the checklist because I believe we could agree that everything there is at least good general guidance than about the apparent tendency for entries in the checklist to become rigid rules that will be enforced even if specific circumstances suggest otherwise. > Any serious effort to clarify the document in this way is > likely to engender more focused discussion than was possibly > earlier, if only by offering some specific and relevant > categorical distinctions. And, in the case of the distinctions I'm suggesting, permit meaningful community consideration of whether there is consensus about particular rules, which may be different from consensus about general guidance. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist IETF Chair
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Pete Resnick
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen - IETF
- RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Theodore Tso
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Thomas Narten
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bill McQuillan
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- More example TLDs in 2606bis? (was: Call for revi… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Ted Hardie
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bob Braden
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Eliot Lear
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Keith Moore
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… John C Klensin
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Lars Eggert
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- ID desires and TOOLS stuff [was: Re: Call for rev… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Julian Reschke
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… SM
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Mixed case (was: Call for review of proposed upda… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Russ Housley
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Dave Crocker
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Chec… Robert Elz