Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

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

On 13/07/2018 13:16, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Ted,
>>
>>> But this BoF follows the pattern we have used recently, at least to my
>> eyes.
>>
>> Yes. The qualitative difference is that the proposal on the table amounts
>> to *chucking out* several RFC streams,
> 
> 
> Quite simply, that's not the proposal on the table, and it's not likely to
> be a proposal that emerges from the BoF.  While I am not speaking for the
> IAB on this, it is my personal impression that the IAB is not only not
> likely to "chuck out" its own stream, but it has no interest in ending the
> financial and other support given to all the streams.
> 
> This is a proposal to experimentally re-label the output, with a clear
> rollback if the experiment doesn't succeed.  Critiquing the proposal is
> certainly a valid part of any BoF, and what emerges may be very different,
> but your characterization is simply not supported by the BoF proposal in
> any way.

But the draft we are supposed to be discussing says:

>>    This documents proposes reserving the "RFC" label for those documents
>>    that are the product of the Internet Standards Process [RFC2026].

The BOF text in the wiki says:

>> This would allow "RFC" to be reserved for standards-related documents,

If that isn't "chucking out", I don't know what it is.

(The theory that this is a reversible change is very dubious, as
others have pointed out.)

Now I really must pack a suitcase.

   Brian 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> and that is (IMHO) so fundamental
>> that a major and as yet undefined effort is needed to discover whether
>> this is acceptable to the whole Internet technical community.
>>
>> The previous changes were administrative by comparison.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 13/07/2018 03:57, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> Slightly off-topic, but perhaps important
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a real difference, in my opinion, in that the definition of
>>>> the streams was a codification of existing practice, and the format
>>>> update was something people have been requesting for many years.
>>>> Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally contentious", but both
>>> proposals had many months of discussions and, in some parts, quite
>> serious
>>> opposition.  Contentious would have been a word I would personally have
>>> used to describe the format update, for example, and I'm not sure why you
>>> would disagree.
>>>
>>> This time, we've seen a much more radical proposal which, if carried
>>>> forward, would fundamentally change the series. In that case you can't
>>>> duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'll note that the proposed experiment borrows many elements of the
>> format
>>> discussion's process.  While there is no question that the final format
>>> documents were published by the IAB, the face-to-face discussions were
>> all
>>> hosted at IETF plenary meetings, for the same reason:  it's the place
>> where
>>> the largest number of stream contributors are together at the same place
>>> and the same time.  It also borrows the rollback method inherent in the
>>> format proposal (double RFC publication, first with trial format, then
>> with
>>> final format).  If you have other methods in mind that would produce more
>>> transparent discussion or more opportunity to test the results as we go,
>>> I'd personally be interested in hearing them.  But this BoF follows the
>>> pattern we have used recently, at least to my eyes.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Brian
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rfcplusplus mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>>>>
>>>
>>
>