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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:14:13PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     > If you read my draft, you'll notice that for all intents and purposes,
>     > all of
> 
> I read it now.
> 
>     > the procedures of publishing a BCP are required anyway: It requires a written
>     > draft, a minimum 4-week last call, and a conclusion of consensus by the
>     > IESG. The only thing that is different is that it doesn't require publication
>     > as an RFC, addition to the BCP series, or an additional RFC or moving it to
>     > Historic when it no longer applies (because, as the draft says, it can't last
>     > longer than a year without actually publishing a BCP). So I don't see what
>     > the misuse vector you're seeing is.
> 
> I would be happier if the variance was recorded as more than an Internet-Draft.
> I understand the desire not to issue an RFC/BCP, and certainly not to wait
> for the RFC-EDITOR to process it.  I suggest that the errata process be used.

I'm confused at how the errata process would even be used for this
(discounting for the sake of argument that it would be a clear abuse of the
errata process)...

-Ben

> In particular, should the document ever get revised, then the one-time
> variance would get recorded as an appendix.  If any other RFCs were published
> as a result of the variance (i.e. if the variance was a suspension of some other
> publication rule), then those documents would need to indicate this case.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>