Re: [INDEP] Last Call Summary of rfc-independent

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

John, Bob -- I agree with you but I have difficulties in coming
up with exact rules, and I'd rather not have a very hard rule
anyway since ultimately its a judgment call whether the
document has really been in the IETF process. So unless
you have some specific text suggestion that we could look
at, I don't know what else we could write.

I do think, however, that with the "should normally" it is
very clear for the authors where to seek publication
first.

Jari

John C Klensin kirjoitti:
> --On Monday, 05 March, 2007 09:31 -0800 Bob Braden
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   
>>   *> OLD:
>>   *>    o  Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not
>> standardized.   *>       While many documents of this type are
>> published via the IESG   *>       approval path (see RFC 3932,
>> Section 1 [RFC3932]), the independent   *>       submission
>> ...
>>     
>
>   
>> NEW:
>>   *>    o  Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not
>> standardized.   *>        While many documents of this type
>> are still published in the IETF   *>        document stream
>> [RFC2026,draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines] as   *>
>> Informational or Experimental RFCs, the independent submission
>>   *>        path has traditionally been open to them as well.
>> However, because   *>        of their intimate connection to
>> the IETF Standards Process   *>        and WG activites and
>> the consequent sensitivity to exact   *> statements of
>>   *>        relationships and to timing, there is reason to
>> believe that such   *>        documents should normally be
>> published via the IETF stream. In   *>        any event, these
>> documents are published for the historical record.   *> 
>>     
>
>   
>> This is an issue that arises often in practice, so we need to
>> be very clear about what we mean.  What do we mean by
>> "considered", and exactly what question does the RFC Editor
>> need to ask an author to find out if a new independent
>> submission has been tainted forever by being "considered" by
>> some working group?
>>     
>
> I agree with Bob that we have a delicate issue here and that we
> should be careful to avoid text that locks us into a place where
> we don't want to be.
>
> I believe that it is essential to the independent submission
> process and to the community that the RFC Editor be able to
> publish documents that the IESG and/or some IETF WG doesn't like
> even after they have "considered" them.  I believe that such
> documents should be held to a very high standard for clarity of
> role in order to be published as independent submissions, but
> that it is important that it be possible for an author and the
> RFC Editor to respond to an IESG comment equivalent to "The
> foobar WG looked at this and considered it A Bad Idea, so Do Not
> Publish" by revising the document to make the differences of
> opinion clear and then publishing it as a dissent.
>
> I think that a document that is developed by a WG, or developed
> as input to a WG, should go to the IESG for sponsorship first,
> both as a "right of first refusal" basis and as a matter of
> efficiency.  But, if the ADs decline to sponsor the document,
> and it is clear from the text that it is not an IETF
> standards-track document or a candidate for such standardization
> (and, ideally, why), nothing should prevent its submission and
> processing on the "independent" path.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion as to whether "should normally" in
> the proposed text above is sufficient to cover those cases, but
> I suspect that we should attempt to be little bit more clear.
>
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
>   


_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent