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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Aaron -

To be a bit more clear, my point is to twist the IESGs arm about recent 
pushback on WGs publishing requirements documents...

RjS


On 9/6/18 3:22 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
> 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
>