Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 08 November 2019 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63384120220 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ss9Z_hOx0gmU for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9A9D120147 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAA03897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:01:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4BE913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:03:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <10457.1573157263@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:03:58 -0500
Message-ID: <18928.1573175038@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 01:04:04 -0000

Keith Moore <> wrote:
    >> Would you consider if these new documents are *RFC*s or, would you consider
    >> if we could make a new document series for these documents? I would suggest
    >> that it become the*Proposed Standard*  series.  That is, we'd change our
    >> first step to not be an*RFC*.

    > At first glance I find this idea appealing.   I'd like to see it explored.  
    > At lot depends on other factors - e.g. when, relative to interop testing, do
    > we look for potential harm to other interests?

When do we do that now?  At IESG review, which is what causes such
significant delays.

That's just too late in the game for an *RFC*, which we can never really take
back.  The property that you like about internet-drafts is that they are
in principal ephermeral, or more to the point, version NN replaces NN-1,
and we can revise them.  That's the property you are looking for, I think.

    > (though maybe we don't need a new document series - maybe we just need a way
    > of designating certain Internet-Drafts as being suitable for interop testing
    > and/or limited deployment)

That was proposed a few months ago. See:

I prefer that we create a new series.  Maybe it shouldn't be hosted on *RFC-EDITOR.ORG*,
but I'd want the identical infrastructure used.

(I would name it after the WG involved.  WG-FOOBAR-1234, but I think this is
a detail, and I'm not stronly attached)

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-