[rfc-i] I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt
jari.arkko at piuha.net
Thu Oct 15 14:24:29 PDT 2009
I do not personally have a problem with any of the suggested models,
However, I have a problem in how we are discussing this topic. It has
already been established a long time ago that you and many other people
have strong opinions about this matter, and its easy to find arguments
to support all those opinions. This is why we have been trying to find a
middle ground that finds a reasonable balance between keeping the RFC
Editor as an independent publisher and allowing important labels to be
attached in exceptional situations. It is not news that what we proposed
as a compromise position isn't optimal from some people's point of view.
But a small number of voices should not drive the entire community's choice.
So, may I ask that if we propose some other resolution, we talk not just
about why that's a great proposal, but also how the proposal addresses
the diverging opinions from various sides of the argument? I am not
claiming by any means that the proposal that we sent out is the right
one, but I think we need to try to honor the different opinions in some
manner. The folk who want as much independence as possible for the RFC
Editor, those who want the ability to put in mandatory notes, etc. FWIW,
several of us believed we had a model that was acceptable to most of us
and could be approved in the two relevant bodies. If that's not the
case, too bad, but this means that we have to find a new compromise that
works for everyone or decide that we have sufficiently rough consensus
to move on anyway. Its NOT enough to change the proposal so that whoever
was unhappy now becomes happy. Negotiation 101. I already checked and
the other extreme camp feels your suggested changes are unacceptable.
Also, I believe the first order of priority is to find out what the IETF
and the larger community wants to do here. Lets do the right thing, and
put the process questions (such as which RFC needs to be updated) aside
for the moment. We will find a way to solve those things, they should
not drive the big decisions.
I also want to remind everyone that it matters very little what the
difference between various versions of this document have been. The only
thing that matters is that we come to an end result that is (perhaps
somewhat grudgingly) accepted by most of us so that we can get the new
headers into use!
More information about the rfc-interest