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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/27/20 6:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 27 Mar 2020, at 17:22, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to publish a BCP for a one-time 
>> variance.  On the other hand I think it's a Very Bad Idea to invent a 
>> lightweight variance procedure that allows for process exceptions 
>> that aren't documented in the normal means, and which fragment the 
>> historical record.   Though I don't doubt anyone's intentions here, a 
>> lightweight variance procedure will sooner or later inevitably be 
>> misused.    Also, it's never a great idea to hurriedly invent new 
>> process when doing so can be avoided.
>
> If you read my draft, you'll notice that for all intents and purposes, 
> all of 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.

The problem I have is with not publishing as an RFC.   I don't think 
people should have to dig through email archives (which are not as 
reliably archived as the RFC series)  to find out what the whole IETF 
process is, or even the evolution history of the IETF process.   I think 
even brief deviations from the process should be archived the same as 
any other changes to the process.

But I'll flip this on its head: why did we suddenly become so concerned 
about the overhead of publishing a single RFC, when as far as I can tell 
we've had a pretty low bar for RFC publication all along?

Keith