Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

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, 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 <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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
>> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>>
> 