Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 20:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2D413104C for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 dzlFIrl8Flrv for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22b.google.com (mail-yb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8C9130F2C for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id s14-v6so9118997ybp.13 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FtSLY8oReLR7Jl7pY0ZvlNpMzhWNp6xbP2l+jiKSF+M=; b=0s5y+tj4paShaD0GXcwCXUnccI/bkOBcL+pZIScSUaXU2vkhPOjXfPEIcRjD3obQ7P 1YOkVJp4ywf4xPka8rteFVsPbV49w8C/ya5fKyHYEBFoPy2witT94KI+bvtTdXk6N3P6 8CIzOBUFML//GRJ166gU1w4oEtnfHsjXXdGx3bE4GxG7FTU0g43ehumqWhW3k4HRCy4+ yFvPdpEjNXQT558+KedTt3p1UzHPq5N8998nG/xEHvbWKd8JdXyRBHy2F+w+ne5D7gGp A0sLSJ97sklJBDId9qgOxaHhjSnBu7bBZU7uqzrgPO1betL0hvppgV7jgR3jZqwY7VpX A6dA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FtSLY8oReLR7Jl7pY0ZvlNpMzhWNp6xbP2l+jiKSF+M=; b=FdjETK7/1WA2cD+hyjDSkdYT5wmdHwyfog6+qDyQYL/7oTj1da+aLDt6m/R6AZMYBX Sm1IKZNO6g4IeBFAULr7OHYdHHbJ7+/acm12ddpbc5akrebz0MqJWYmSY9zh1XTEOaMv AXQentxY01Lrg3gwBehN0rBjePJtJuKY7YwPQ3hD1bIbCeHC5xZPUqkKWuW5sg9T3Uit QtGlg1I3CXDpVka+z1nmhROb7hcjGwSjLbmM47MWlaq39gOWlZo5xfw0nv0KO39I9bkm CeMCdxj8vVaYxSJCzI6qJ4Q5TR70cedbI04Wgh3B3bX0zXVMbIEvpZjdq5R32e+CdfRU f4IA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E357GpMM82ugCgX8ZJuDDYie2u/FAIoQU8dfh3zQMi6gG+91+kK 7OZH6UKSajVzjE3/JhTa0uMNyaCqL4CMbPDHd+yKAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpd73oClXjpm2eThHKoNJdCPSqHgrd5q1Qpgj1osn1AF7cUfiz9MlAWLLxUwtJjawuM+488VNSoJQR8idF9JRiU=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:32c1:: with SMTP id y184-v6mr14014196yby.168.1531253036812; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a81:6b83:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAYFbt39srO_g1J3UqC=E=FB8Wf8Z4PYc0bDPfCxbEhMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a9f9fe28-9e87-05b8-6c4b-2f5d8941f4c8@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMAYFbt39srO_g1J3UqC=E=FB8Wf8Z4PYc0bDPfCxbEhMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNmu6FPN0FdmJAZYUWKpN9E8xHjQVGy7Erv+fq5a7iu2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052293c0570aaa1d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/Rzmadg_ARlp4O_lehJcKyI6sD9o>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:04:01 -0000
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > >> As to voices, one of the perhaps lost aspects of RFCs is that Jon always >> encouraged dissenting views on important topics to be published, so long as >> they were well reasoned and reasonably well written. Personally I'd like >> to see more dissenting views coming out of independent submissions. I know >> I have quite a few to share ;-) I offer that only in as much as having a >> few dissenting views might make clear that we really do speak with multiple >> voices. >> > I personally don't think the dissenting opinions are fewer now, but fewer > of them are expressed in RFCs. The critiques and dissents come, as Eric > mentioned, in other series or other forms. > It's perhaps worthwhile to distinguish between a number of different types of this kind of meta-RFC material. Here's a non-exhaustive list - Alternate proposals that didn't get accepted - "Inside" critiques (some of the examples Eliot gave) - "Outside" critiques - Academic papers on a given protocol (e.g., the examples I gave for TLS 1.3) In my experience, the first two of these often get published as RFCs, but sometimes don't (though not always, see https://hueniverse.com/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell-8eec45921529) Conversely the last two almost never appear as RFCs. Critiques are typically blog posts, twitter, etc., with academic papers appearing in journals, conferences, etc. -Ekr > Anyway, I won't be in Montreal, so here's my own bottom line: if the IAB >> are serious about actually using different labels, ask yourselves what the >> plan is to make those new series successful. How will the new series be >> promoted? What will you attract readership? And what will the rules of >> the road be for the series? If you do not have a plan, then let's not be >> under any illusions that the new series will be successful. >> >> I think you're quite right that making a successful change of this type > will take work, and that promoting the output of the different streams will > be part of that work. What's been interesting for me is that the thought > of how different the audiences are for that promotion. Reaching the folks > who need to understand what the IRTF's output is and means is a very > different enterprise than reaching those who might need to understand what > the Internet Architecture Board has to say. Given the acronym overload > there, a portion of that has to be making sure which IAB is talking, an > impact that the IAB or ISE would not feel. But I think that actually > illustrates the problem folks have brought forward here: if we were > promoting these voices, we would do so at least partly to very different > audiences. That's may be an important signal. > > Ted > > > >> Eliot >> >> On 09.07.18 17:24, Ted Hardie wrote: >> >> In a different thread, Eric made a statement about the RFC Series being >> in conversation with other publications: >> >> The RFC series (and also I-Ds) have an important role to play here, but >>> it also exists in conversation with a lot of other publication venues, and >>> I think that's healthy. >>> >> >> While I agree with him, I think the metaphor of "conversation" is even >> more useful in describing both the current series and the question before >> us. From my personal perspective, the primary reason we use "RFC" as a >> series identifier is to identify a specific set of technical documents as >> part of a common "conversation". The adoption of the term and series by >> the IETF was a signal about the conversation their documents were to be >> part of; choosing a different document series (like ANSI, ISO, or minting >> a new one) would have sent a signal about a different technical community >> with whom the IETF was in dialog. >> >> When the idea of different streams and stream managers gelled, we kept >> the same series identifier for all of them. I think, personally, we did >> that because we wanted to be clear that all of the documents continued to >> be part of a larger conversation about the development of Internet >> technologies. >> >> One way to understand the problem motivating this BoF is also through the >> metaphor of conversation: many outside the community simply don't recognize >> that there are multiple voices inside that conversation. They see all of >> the documents as utterances by a single, somewhat nebulous group. That can >> cause problems. Among those named earlier were the academic community's >> failure to value the output of the IRTF; vendors or customers not >> distinguishing consensus output from proprietary alternatives; and even a >> few efforts to get rejected ideas to appear to have been accepted ones. >> >> The question before us could be cast as: is it more important now to >> highlight the different voices that the streams and statuses currently >> convey, so that others understand them as disctinct? >> >> As Eric points out, there are other ways to maintain a conversation among >> different groups than to make their output part of a single series. There >> are also other ways we could try to make sure that we highlight that >> distinction more fully (using STD numbers for all IETF standards documents, >> for example, from proposed standard onward). But I think this is the core >> of the tension, shorn of discussion of brand or history: how to we get to >> the right balance of maintaining the conversation while improving the >> understanding that these are individual voices within it? >> >> My thoughts as individual, >> >> regards, >> >> Ted >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rfcplusplus mailing listRfcplusplus@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf..org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rfcplusplus mailing list > Rfcplusplus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus > >
- [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Aaron Falk
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Aaron Falk
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Aaron Falk
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Melinda Shore
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Aaron Falk
- [Rfcplusplus] What would the ISE publish [Was: Co… RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Ted Hardie
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor Aaron Falk