Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the romp! A reminder of what I would like us to decide first...

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 10:02 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Should we establish a process that addresses series evolution
>> over time or should we leave that for later?
> Personally, I think we ought keep in mind that we are
> dealing with a 50-year old artefact (the series) that I at
> least would like to see setup so it could continue for
> another 50 years, should the content of RFCs in the series
> continue to be relevant. 50 years is too far into the
> future to be fair, but I'd like us to aim to set things
> up so that could happen and I figure that means we need
> to define the RSE role with that in mind. Concretely, I
> think that implies some level of independence from IETF
> process-change may be needed for the RSE - but I don't
> claim to know how that might best be done.

Strongly agreed.  

Let me add something that, given your comment about IETF process
changes, you may have had in mind:

If we are trying to aim for 50 (or more) years, the structure
and mechanisms should be sufficiently robust and flexible to
adapt to either or both of the following extreme events:

(1) The IETF, at least the IETF as we know it as a SDO with a
collection of principles and customs, disappears or,
alternately, pulls its Standards Track documents out of the RFC
Series.

(2) XML is superceded by a vastly improved YML, ZML or something
else and becomes a historical artifact that people view with
about as much amusement (and have current, active, and
maintained tools for) as eight inch floppy disks are viewed
today.

I'm not predicting either of those things, but a 50 year plan
that was not sufficiently robust to be able to think clearly
about them and adapt is not really a 50 year plan.

best,
   john