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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 13 14:53:06 PST 2009


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

Hi, Brian,

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

These are really good reasons that expressing consensus *in the
boilerplate* is irrelevant except for standards track documents.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkltG1IACgkQE5f5cImnZrsFdgCeO8ldIy4vfQUMTlubFdB1tq3z
x1MAnip+KhjVlJrfWetRb3ivaMYBi57s
=vU5z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list