Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 July 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 5A52112006A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2LUILXCjovYw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58DA120033 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1A138194 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6299B90 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPv8xUMbSt+SDL_X56SBB_CPyBMKZaQMbPd=6M-xT+hpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL02cgToQWmOrfOxS_dc4KRtT9e0PXNzmhWZHkRUyV_3V=E-mQ@mail.gmail.com> <0856af71-4d84-09d1-834d-12ac7252420c@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgQ9qWVUTPW=Cpx=r32k3i1PLgfp5ax0pKMdH0nKObcKTg@mail.gmail.com> <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com> <CAHw9_i+UBs85P+gjcF6BJd1_WD2qFrrYCnXb4rtcG9Hepqm37w@mail.gmail.com> <796c1f6c-cd67-2cd5-9a98-9059a0e516f8@network-heretics.com> <20190704013009.dlifopcbm2umnqo7@mx4.yitter.info> <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <CABcZeBOw6w2tm4YYFdmLwC23ufPDupt2D1Vzwjn4Pi9bbf6R-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190704192057.GI3508@localhost> <CABcZeBMC-VRfea3YqLSs6yhtEq4VtfdO5L56v87KH=vMR4y=+A@mail.gmail.com> <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se> <CABcZeBPv8xUMbSt+SDL_X56SBB_CPyBMKZaQMbPd=6M-xT+hpQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:19:29 -0400
Message-ID: <19233.1562339969@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NfMF6mEnoeDEDPebJMNYoiDHJgw>
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:19:32 -0000

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
    > Yeah, I don't think enormously. This worked fine with the ID system.
    > As I said, what would be helpful for big protocols like TLS, QUIC, etc.
    > seems to me to be the ability to make "editorial" changes to the document
    > post-publication. I scare-quote editorial because it would also include
    > clarifying points that basically everyone agreed on but that could be
    > misinterpreted and would impede interop if there were multiple
    > interpretations.

I agree with your goal.

Maybe being able to have RFC5288.02 or RFC8446.02 would make it easier to get
through the rather long post-WGLC.

While we are pretty good at getting cross-area review now, and getting
security review early, I feel that there is still too much ("last minute")
IESG meddling^Wpush back.  It's not that I don't appreciate much of what
gets fixed, I just wish it got fixed earlier in the process.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-