[rfc-i] I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

Jari Arkko 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, 
including yours.

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 mailing list