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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 14:39:43 PST 2009


Joe,

On 2009-01-14 10:03, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----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?

It's hard to answer that without bitching about a case that annoyed
me personally. But if say half of a research group is in favour of
Approach Alpha and the other half is in favour of Approach Omega,
shouldn't both documents be identified as a product of the research
group? And shouldn't it be an IRTF Steering Group decision whether
to do so? Certainly, independent submission is always an option
but that puts the Independent stream editor in a position of judging
IRTF work, which is what the new model gets away from.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list