[rfc-i] Fwd: [Rfc-citations] new version of I-D

Glenn Kowack Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Thu Feb 17 19:58:51 PST 2011


Paul, Brian, Ran, and Craig all commented on my process notes, below.
I have not yet heard anything that motivates a change to those steps.
But, some clarification is in order:

- There is no need to rush to judgement (thank you, Brian), nor was there
one before. If Editor policy-making can't reasonably wind up during my
official tenure, then it will need to finish up thereafter, either under Olaf or
the new RSE.

- Publishing the output of the committee as an Informational RFC is a good
idea, probably under the IAB stream. That can happen promptly. A little
care will need to be taken so that readers won't confuse this with subsequent
RFC Editor policy, in case they don't end up being identical.

- Let's recall that the Citations committee is an experiment in getting more
extensive community input into Editor policy-making.  All of this is informs
how we'll do this in the future (or not, as the case may be).

- I want to close this with a friendly challenge to this and all future RSE
committees: the only reasonable goal is to aim, within the charter of the
committee, to complete and deliver as ready-to-be-policy recommendation
to the RSE as possible, modulo practical intra-Editor issues (of the sort I
mentioned earlier). This committee has done a lot of work responding to and
aligning with community input, and I have no desire to diverge from that (unless,
again, implementation details interfere). Of course, it's still up to the RSE
and Editor to put any final touches on policy before it goes to the RSOC/IAB
for review.  This doesn't conflict with a later call for additional community input.

Amazing how much "getting to the business end of the job" quickens the
collective mind. :-)

thanks,
Glenn
__

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glenn Kowack <Glenn at riveronce.com>
> Date: February 17, 2011 5:08:53 PM EST
> To: Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com>
> Cc: rfc-citations at bbn.com
> Subject: Re: [Rfc-citations] new version of I-D
> 
> Craig and Citations Committee,
>    My hope is that the committee's work will be complete enough for
> us to adopt your recommendations relatively quickly, without change.
> We'll proceed as follows upon receipt of your recommendations,
> 
> 1) the RFC Editor will review the recommendations in general, and
> in particular for clarity, implementability, simplicity, and if there are
> any cost impacts (training, software changes, etc) required.  We
> may come back to the committee with questions.  We've already
> discussed this among Editor staff, and since Sandy has been a
> participant, I hope this will be a relatively quick step.
> 
> We'll also review the breadth of discussion and how well that covers
> the expected span of impact.  It's possible we will want to give this
> a broader review either before or after step (2) below.
> 
> 2) Craig and I will send a joint email to the IAB indicating the work
> done to date, our report on the breadth of discussion to date, and a
> request for a process review by the IAB to determine if implementation
> as RFC Editor policy is appropriate. If so, proceed to (3).  If not,
> we'll take additional review and policy development steps.
> 
> 3) Implementation, which may require allocation of resources,
> and a schedule if necessary.  This will include posting the new policy
> on the rfc-editor site, and community notification.
> 
> Re which stream for publication, Craig is right on the mark. Structuring
> the RSOC as a IAB-established committee, with RSE/RSOC developed
> policy confirmed by the IAB, makes the IAB stream the natural
> place for publication of RFC Editor documents.
> 
> Comments welcome.
> 
> thanks,
> Glenn
> 
> ___
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> On 17  Feb 2011, at 12:36 , Craig Partridge wrote:
>>>> I note that Ran's text was designed to get us out of stream discussions
>>>> and Alice's comments put us back into stream discussions.... help?!?
>>> 
>>> My understanding, possibly wrong, is that this document is
>>> an informational report of the committee's discussions and
>>> consensus recommendations.
>>> 
>>> I further understand that the RFC Editor might or might not
>>> choose to implement any or all of the recommendations made
>>> by the committee.
>>> 
>>> I hope the above is a common and correct understanding.
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> With that understanding, I would want the document to avoid
>>> getting into stream-specific commentary, so the "committee report"
>>> in this I-D can be published relatively soon.
>>> 
>>> I'll take a close look at that section of text and see whether
>>> there might be a slight bit of wordsmithing that I can propose.
>>> 
>>> I did like Alice's comments that it would be more clear to talk
>>> about a document "stream" than a document "track".
>>> 
>>>> I'd like to get this out and declare the committee finished
>>>> early next week (allows Glenn to report our results before he departs).
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>> My understanding, also possibly wrong, is that this I-D containing
>>> the "committee report" would be published as an informational document 
>>> (probably on the Independent Submission stream, since there is no RFC Editor 
>>> stream AFAIK, and this isn't an IAB, IRTF, or IETF document).
>> 
>> Actually seems likely to be an IAB document as the RFC Editor ties more
>> directly to the IAB than to the Independent Stream (at issue here is despite
>> a recommendation, the IAB decided not to create the RFC Editor stream).
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rfc-citations mailing list
>> Rfc-citations at bbn.com
>> http://lists.bbn.com/mailman/listinfo/rfc-citations
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rfc-citations mailing list
> Rfc-citations at bbn.com
> http://lists.bbn.com/mailman/listinfo/rfc-citations



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list