Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 13 December 2016 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 C56F61295A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:45:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 ht6hoNdxTUIY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (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 321A61293EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC52352F19F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 05:45:16 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oErC9AcnUH3b for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 05:45:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (173-166-5-69-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.69]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62598352F18F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 05:45:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 05:45:06 -0500
References: <147389550726.29872.13885747896056913688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0f129603-20c0-921f-6a67-e5a4c74b3c41@gmail.com> <CAA=duU0NNCeL1EP5iJo9YxDmgdtgXSpa+GO1Xs_i38HMrFxSKQ@mail.gmail.com> <b4ab1536-0eb4-0bb4-d441-79cfd74cfd9c@joelhalpern.com> <66D4FC4D5384B187F1571399@JcK-HP8200> <9a3ff314-e778-b416-182f-0dd687f434ce@dret.net> <378400590145685410530968@JcK-HP8200> <25066.1481576196@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <896.1481578272@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d527c6cd-bc0c-66b6-e481-2510f747879e@gmail.com> <E186A6708FBC8836D0DC4655@JcK-HP8200>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E186A6708FBC8836D0DC4655@JcK-HP8200>
Message-Id: <49012BDE-738C-4755-B5B3-A95A2ED64BE7@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/P7lgTuoYFvd-PxwmHJ5JWNvr534>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:45:21 -0000

John’s description of how things looked to the working group is consistent with 
my view as chair of the working group

it was a very frustrating experience

Scott

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:47 PM, John C Klensin <john@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:06 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think this illustrates the dictum that "there is always a
>> well-known solution to every human problem — neat,
>> plausible, and wrong." [HL Mencken, 1917]. It's not that it
>> wouldn't clarify the exact status of certain RFCs - but it
>> would hardly scratch the surface of the underlying standards
>> spaghetti.
>> 
>> IMHO, the problem tackled in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-
>> 04 is too complex to be fixed by simple measures.
>> 
>> It's also worth looking at this (out of date) example:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-stdpr
>> oc-00
>> 
>> Anybody up for newnewtrk?
> 
> Alternate proposal:  IIR, the IESG never did a write up or
> initiated a Last Call on that proposal despite a request from
> the WG to do so.   They simply announced that they were not
> going to consider it, an action that is dubious under RFC 2026
> but not prohibited.  Some of us who were active in Newtrk
> assumed that, if there was a Last Call and fairly clear
> community consensus, the IESG would be in an intolerable
> position if they decided to advance the document, but that is
> just speculation.
> 
> As co-author of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04,
> I'd be happy to find time to update references and boilerplate
> and reissue it if the community wants to take it up and the IESG
> is willing to given it serious consideration, either on the
> basis of the Newtrk recommendations or through some restarted
> process.
> 
> Where I think I agree with Brian is that this is a complicated
> issue and that a new rule or required paragraph will make things
> even more complicated without improving things.
> 
> best,
>   john
> 
> 
>