Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:43:39 -0400

All,

I value the independence of the Independent Submission stream and
IRTF Stream from the IETF (including the IESG).  Indeed, both the
RFC series and the acceptance of independent RFCs long pre-date
even the existence of the IETF.

I prefer that the IESG NOT have or assert the authority to mandate
additions to Independent Stream or IRTF Stream documents.

The existing approach where the IESG MAY request an IESG note is
more than sufficient for cases where a non-IETF document is making
an end-run around the IETF standards activities.  We have lots of
operational experience that this works well enough, so there is
no obvious reason for the current approach to change.

Robert Elz's notes from earlier today on this topic seem sensible,
as do Joel Halpern's notes on this topic over the past several days.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:17:01 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>

    > The IESG is not, and must not be, the sole repository for responsible
    > decision-making in the IETF

Couldn't agree more. A division of powers, with checks and balances, are a
critical part of any organizational system, IMO.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:34:25 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>

    > What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with
    > the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical meaning,
    > RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as documents that have
    > the been reviewed and approved, to a greater or lesser degree, by the
    > Internet community.

This may be true, but it's also basically irrelevant to the point at hand.

Even if we stopped using the RFC series for non-standards documents, and
started a new series for indepedendent, IRTF, etc documents, (which we might
call the CFR series, with the letters reversed - it has a nice un-official
expansion, 'Can't xxx Read', in honour of those who would make it necessary)
the question of 'what authority, if any, the IESG should have over documents
in that document series' remains.

Simply not providing a dissemination path for such non-IETF document is not,
IMO, an option that's even worth discussing at any length. We need one, and
the question will remain over how much, if any, authority the IESG will have
over it.

(Temporarily reverting to your point about the series name, the problem of
the world thinking that 'RFC'=='Standard' has been with us for a long time,
and a number of things have been tried to fix it, with varying degrees of
success - the STD numbers, Internet-Drafts, etc. I generally don't put a lot
of weight on people who aren't up to speed on the details, just like I'm not
bothered by the many network users for whom 'the Internet' == 'the Web' - I
don't see any value in renaming things there, in line with their muddled
and/or simplistic model, either.)

    > it's not clear to me why the independent stream exists at all, other
    > than for historical reasons.

As a place for the networking community to publish things in a way which is
guaranteed to have universal, easy, ubiquitous and free access - something
which publishing in a journal does _not_ accomplish.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:29:20 -0400 (EDT)

> From: <[email-masked]>

    > Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the timely
    > appeal path.

I agree - this proposal:

    >> if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting specific changes to
    >> a document ... and the ISE and authors decide to not incorporate those
    >> proposed changes, the ISE is required to explain to the IESG, in
    >> writing, why not and allow a reasonable period of time for the IESG to
    >> respond. If it felt it were necessary, the IESG could then open a
    >> further discussion, ask the RSE to mediate, or launch a formal request
    >> for IAB review. 

is in line with the open 'checks and balances' I like to see, while not
adding additional process to almost all of what the RFC Editor does.

    > From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

    > I still want to see the RFC Editor as a simple journal-like function

Exactly.

	Noel