[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 13 13:03:55 PST 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, Brian,

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> On 2009-01-14 08:21, Joe Touch wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like algorithmically
>> specified language. 
> 
> Nevertheless, it's the only solution that scales, given the workload
> of everyone involved. After all, there's nothing (I hope) that
> forbids deviation from the specified language when it's obviously
> wrong.

I'm just saying that the doc should list the possibilities, not the
algorithms. There aren't that many possibilities.

> I don't want to prolong the argument, but:
> 
>>     IRTF non-consensus:
>>
>> 	This document is a product of the Internet Research
>> 	Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
>> 	related research and development activities.  These results
>> 	might not be suitable for deployment.
>> 	
>> 	++This RFC represents the individual
>> 	opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
>> 	Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).++
>>
>> ++ this paragraph seems unnecessary; we don't do this for IETF docs that
>> aren't group consensus.
> 
> There shouldn't be *any* IETF stream documents that lack consensus that
> they are OK to publish. But even in the IETF, we've used equivalent
> formulations, e.g. RFC3248, when there's consensus to publish but
> not consensus on the contents.
> 
> In the IRTF this variant is essential. IRTF groups are *not* automatically
> obliged to reach consensus, and factions within a research group need to be
> able to publish contended research results.

Why are those considered IRTF/IETF stream documents, rather than
individual submissions?

I.e., I'm not arguing that there are no such documents, just that if
there's no consensus what's the value of "this is part of a stream" anymore?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkltAbsACgkQE5f5cImnZrteMQCfVln/w+56j74lh3Ch7ChU0iZ2
+HYAoM3JM8xaKa0D2Xk5VrEAwCJ7HmpO
=nKF1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list