Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 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.)
>
>
Describing the theory that it is reversible as doubtful is a fair comment.
It may be difficult to roll back a change, and that's well worth
discussing.  But that's different from asserting that the proposal intends
any stream to be "chucked out", in any of the meanings I find
<https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/chucking+out>.  They are not being
closed, defunded, or sent off to other organizations; they continue to use
the same facilities, represent the same streams, and carry on with the same
managers. The proposed difference is in the label which is applied during
the experiment, nothing more.

Arguing against some other proposal comes close to either failing to credit
your colleagues with the plain of their words or arguing against a
strawman, neither of which I hope you intend.

Now I really must pack a suitcase.
>
> Travel safely, and I look forward to seeing you in Montreal.

Ted


>    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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>