IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 10 October 2013 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 2A10021F9C52 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3HEQPSiQ+xV7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C237221F9B8A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C27D2CC95 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:42:26 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3fq6pG7Krtw for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:42:25 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B528C2CC48 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:42:25 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <525590D5.3050606@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:42:25 +0300
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF9C9D3F-24A9-4471-A518-BEEF92E17677@piuha.net>
References: <20131007164829.16131.73595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008054041.0d74aa88@resistor.net> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA5FFA8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <5254CC15.3050802@gmail.com> <5254E7A3.8050507@pi.nu> <5254E9EF.6010807@gmail.com> <B8F18391-6CEC-4A5B-A881-CFCD9E6BE602@nominum.com> <525590D5.3050606@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:42:33 -0000

FWIW, on the issue of Informational RFCs seen as cast in stone:

I think I've seen that problem occasionally. I.e. people assigning a far too high value to a document, just because it is an RFC. The world changes, our understanding changes, and as Dave pointed out processes evolve… RFCs need to change now and then as well. 

I agree that the issue is much more serious for BCPs. But I think we really need to get over the issue. The best defense for that problem is to be seen publishing and revising RFCs. If we start to be afraid of publishing an RFC… I think we've already lost too much. I do not want to go there. 

Just a personal opinion, of course.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email