[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 13 14:53:06 PST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2009-01-14 10:03, Joe Touch wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Hi, Brian,
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 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
>> 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.
These are really good reasons that expressing consensus *in the
boilerplate* is irrelevant except for standards track documents.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest