Re: [newtrk] draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> On Mar 29, 2006, at 5:49 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> ...
>>
>>> At this point, we seem to be headed back for yet another round of  
>>> "is there really a problem?" discussions. "There really is a  
>>> problem", probably not for everyone (it may be well-understood  what 
>>> SHIM6 is), but for enough people to justify moving forward on  ISDs, 
>>> independent of whether Newtrk does anything else or not.
>>> We have been very conservative about RFC 3933 experiments  involving 
>>> the standards track. Perhaps there are a small number of  protocols 
>>> that need ISDs, and the rest do not. Given a choice  between 
>>> bootstrapping ISDs, solving a real problem, and looking  for broader 
>>> applicability, and another round of navel-gazing,  should we consider 
>>> moving forward with an ISD experiment?
>>
>>
>> Well, shouldn't we discuss the docid draft first?
> 
> 
> The concept of extending the STD numbering scheme to sub-STD  categories 
> places the association role onto the RFC-editor.

I thought it was explicitly placed on the IESG.

>  Assigning an 
> organizational effort will be needed to some degree for  existing 
> documents.  Compared to the SRD scheme, this organization is  introduced 
> later in a draft's lifetime, although the WD designation  allows 
> predictive assignments of RFC numbers by the IESG to hasten an  
> associative categorization.  Of course, a favorable comparison for  the 
> DocID scheme would be with respect to the current STD  assignment.  (Not 
> a very high bar.)

Exactly, simplicity and incremental change.

     Brian
> 
> As an alternative, a scheme could permit originators to indicate  where 
> the draft is expected to reside within an hierarchal lineage  and 
> category.  As the draft matures, this pre-assignment would reduce  the 
> burden the DocID scheme would place upon the RFC-editor.  Using  several 
> numbering schemes, where a document could be reassign to a  different 
> sequence, also introduces a level of complexity and confusion.
> 
> The SRD approach utilized name.serial references and sub-categories  of 
> core, extension, guidance, replaces, experimental, and companion  (other 
> SRDs).  With an SRD, the same I-D or RFC could appear in  several 
> simultaneous definitions.  This flexibility is not a property  supported 
> by the simultaneous  conformance-mnemonic:number:category  scheme 
> proposed in the DocID draft.  The SRD approach allowed  separate 
> maturity levels to share a common user-friendly text-label.   These 
> standardized sequences could reference the SRD name.serial and  treat 
> RFCs as a flattened set.  When a higher serial number exists  for the 
> text-label, it would be understood to represent the same  endeavour in a 
> different state.  The prefix/serialization scheme used  by the SRD 
> allows a simple prediction of the next state designator.  (There would 
> be no need to predict RFC numbers.)  The SRD approach  offers a simpler 
> maturity designation and a comprehensible  association of documents 
> related to a common endeavor.
> 
> Multiple sequences and IESG predictive RFC numbering do not seem a  good 
> method for communicating what documents are related to an  endeavour, 
> and which documents represent stable interoperability.  It  should be 
> possible to provide web based tools that allow both WG and  individuals 
> to assemble their view of what belongs within an RFC  set.  The IESG and 
> external organizations could then offer  designations based upon those 
> documents.  The RFC-editor would then  not be left deciding what is 
> needed for a particular endeavour, and  in what category a document 
> should reside.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
> 
> 
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html