Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/16/19 8:46 PM, john heasley wrote:
>
>> So what it sounds like you need is a link to an internet-draft but
>> without the version number at the end, that always points to the current
>> version of that Internet-draft.
> eh, not exactly; there are baggage and expectation associated with that
> name that does not seem appropriate/necessary.
>
> I want RFC 7525 to not be a RFC nor a draft, instead a Living Document (LD)
> that the WG publishes on github (or pick another SCM) with WG consensus,
> and does not take a year+ to publish or update.

I could see some utility in having some documents being able to be 
updated in place.  But I would have serious concerns with document 
content like RFC7525 (i.e. technical recommendations for implementation 
and/or operation of protocols) approved without IETF consensus.   It is 
essentially part of a protocol specification.   So a WG should not be 
able to "publish" such a document, nor approve it based entirely on its 
own consensus. That would not only bypass IETF consensus (and cross-area 
review), it would effectively bypass appeals and other safeguards we 
have in place.   Even if the effect were "mostly harmless" in most 
cases, it would be a really bad precedent for others.

I would also object to IETF consensus documents making normative 
reference to such a document.

I also think trying to define IETF consensus for a moving target could 
be challenging.   Not impossible, perhaps, just challenging.

But I'd be supportive of trying to streamline the IETF consensus process 
for such documents, on the theory that review of such documents 
(including analysis of likely effects) should be easier than review of 
full protocol specifications.

Keith