[Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: Re: Program Last Call Results and Next Steps)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 31 January 2022 19:56 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6AD3A157A for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:56:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sp-XeTdPSZgO for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38C33A1573 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1nEcme-0008qD-RU; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:56:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:56:11 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, rfced-future@iab.org
cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Message-ID: <A3E21347D5F71C11A30F5C13@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/rttaswBbGq7vN3yGO8xdi0o-F_I>
Subject: [Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: Re: Program Last Call Results and Next Steps)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:56:25 -0000
--On Monday, January 31, 2022 12:22 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote: > Dear all, > > Program last call has now closed. > > We received one set of editorial comments from Brian > Carpenter. I want to detail the proposed changes here, and > their disposition for the next draft, which we are asking > Peter to post now. Once posted, we will forward that draft > to the IAB for further processing. >... Eliot, I deliberately deferred sending this note until after the Last Call closed and you wrote your note. It is clear to me that I am in the rough on several issues and will likely be even after the next stages of the process are complete and I do not have any desire to, to use your term, relitigate long-settled issues or otherwise restart the conversation. However, I think it is important to get this view on the record at this point. >From this minority point of view, I believe there are two key points from which we have walked away (or compromised our way away from)... (1) The RFC Series survived and served the community well for nearly a half-century because of some fundamental commonalities (or, if you will, "principles") that provided functional and coherent leadership and operation over those years even as things evolved. One was consistent and clear leadership and, to a significant extent, authority and accountability in the hands of a single individual at a time. Over that period, the individuals who held that role (at least on other than a temporary/interim basis) were either technical publications experts or someone who understood the limitations of his knowledge and was willing and able to reach out to such experts when needed and pay attention to that advice. While there were clearly disadvantages to that approach, it did work and one of the reasons for it is, fwiw, consistent with why the LLC has a single Executive Director with considerable authority rather than being run by a committee or multiple committees with no one person having significant authority or accountability. (2) The IETF's way of doing things, including its working groups, leadership, and management structure, works well because the vast majority of participants are experts in the subject matter to which they try to contribute. People with opinions but no clue are typically swiftly weeded out or simply ignored. However, we tend to assume that, because those mechanisms work well for Internet engineering issues, they will work at least equally well (with the same participants) for entirely unrelated topics. In the particular case of a model built around an RSWG whose participants are IETF participants with the expertise profile of IETF technical participants, I am confident that the RFC Series will evolve in the direction that the consensus of those participants determines... but, because of those expertise and perspective issues, not necessarily in directions that are best for the Internet and its users. As I said, I know I'm in the rough and I hope I'm wrong about where this may lead. But, in case things do not work as well and smoothly as the Program seems to expect, perhaps the above will be useful as both a cautionary note and part of a starting point for whatever might come next. best regards, john
- [Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: Re: P… John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: R… Adrian Farrel