Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

On 16 sep. 2013, at 17:31, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 
>> As actionable for this draft I take that I explicitly mention
>> that Section 4.1 2026 is exclusively updated.
> 
> While I understand your desire to keep this short, the pragmatic
> reality is that your non-IETF audience is likely to read this
> document (especially after you hand it to them) and conclude
> that it is the whole story.  Since the natural question that
> immediately follows "why should we accept your standards at all"
> is "why can't you hand them off to, e.g., ISO, the way that many
> national bodies and organizations like IEEE do with many of
> their documents".  
> 
> Suggestion in the interest of brevity: in addition to mentioning
> the above, mention explicitly that there are requirements in
> other sections of 2026 that affect what is standardized and how. 

Second paragraph of the introduction now reads:


      This document exclusively updates the characterization of
      Proposed Standards from RFC2026 Section 4.1.1 and does not speak
      to or alter the procedures for the maintenance of Standards
      Track documents from RFC 2026 and <xref target="RFC6410">RFC
      6410</xref>. For complete understanding of the requirements for
      standardization those documents should be read in conjunction
      with this document.
    
> By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
> want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
> things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
> energy to actually figure out what the rules are.  Perhaps it is
> time for someone to create an unofficial redlined version of
> 2026 that incorporates all of the changes and put it up on the
> web somewhere.   I think we would want a clear introduction and
> disclaimer that it might be be exactly correct and that only the
> RFCs are normative, but the accumulation of changes may
> otherwise be taking us too far into the obscure.  If we need a
> place to put it, it might be a good appendix to the Tao.  And
> constructing it might be a good job for a relative newcomer who
> is trying to understand the ins and outs of our formal
> procedures.

I guess this is a call for volunteers.

--Olaf