Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-08

["Aaron Falk" <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Sep 2018, at 16:07, Robert Sparks wrote:

> (Repeating one thing from my Last Call review for the benefit of the 
> IESG):
>
> This was a big effort, and it appears that it was helpful to the folks
> working on the interface document, but it's not clear how it will be
> useful to implementers. The IESG should consider  whether this, like
> requirements documents, needs to be in the RFC series. The most likely
> use I can see in the future would be for historians, and a different
> and shorter presentation would serve them better.

Hi Robert-

This seems like more useful information for RFC Editor than for the 
IESG.  According to RFC2026 the IESG's criteria for publication for 
Informational RFCs are:

>
> 4.2.2  Informational
>
>    ... The Informational
>    designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
>    very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
>    sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to 
> verification
>    that there has been adequate coordination with the standards 
> process
>    (see section 4.2.3).

and

> 6.1.2  IESG Review and Approval
>
>    The IESG shall ... determine whether or not the technical quality 
> and clarity
>    of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
>    maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
>


So, I don't think the IESG gets to decide that it doesn't belong in an 
RFC just because it doesn't it wouldn't be useful to implementors or 
historians (only two of many RFC audiences).  I suggest you take your 
concerns up with the TAPS working group, who thought it was important to 
document their analysis, and/or Heather (cc'ed).

--aaron