[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 20:19:37 PDT 2014
Here are my comments on this draft.
Mainly, I think it is a very useful overview and its structure
is just about right.
> 2. Problem Statement
> Today, there are nearly three billion people connected to the
> Internet, and individuals from 45 countries or more regularly
> attending IETF meetings over the last 5 years [ISTATS] [IETF numbers
> are unpublished figures from the Secretariat; one could dig them out
> from the plenary proceedings--how to reference?].
I wouldn't bother. You're reporting facts that are already public, and
it's hardly worth citing 15 sets of proceedings. It might be worth citing
annual hits on the rfc-editor site as another metric.
> In order to make RFCs easily viewable to the
> largest number of people possible, across a wide array of devices,
> and to respect the diversity of authors and reference materials, it
> is time to change from the tightly prescribed format of the RFC
I'd suggest s/change from/update/ because the new format will also
be quite tightly prescribed.
> Existing authors and implementors, lawyers that argue
> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and policy-makers ...
This list is incomplete, so I suggest starting it with "Among others,".
Also, consider adding "educators" and maybe even "managers".
> 4. Overview of the Decision Making Process
> Requirements, use cases, concerns, and suggestions were collected
> from the communities of interest at every stage of the RFC format
> update project. Input was received through the rfc-interest mailing
> list, as well as in several face-to-face sessions at IETF meetings.
> Updates regarding the status of the project were offered to the IETF
> community during the IETF Technical Plenary as well as Format BoFs or
> IAB sessions at IETF 84, IETF 85, IETF 88, IETF 89, and IETF 90
> [IETF84] [IETF85] [IETF88] [IETF89] [IETF90].
How about outreach to the IRTF, and also mentioning that the IAB and ISE
have been involved in the process?
> After the high-level requirements were published, an RFC Format
> Design Team was brought together ...
The modern distaste for passive sentences is not shared by me, but
this one really should say who brought the team together.
> 7. Transition Plan
> 7.1. Testing Phase
I think that should be 7.2, and 7.1 should be "Tool development phase."
This isn't the place for details, but I would at least like to
know how responsibility will be shared between the parties involved.
We know from experience that coordinating tool efforts that are
partly volunteer based and partly RFP based is quite hard, and here
we have the possibility of at least two "procurement agencies"
(RPC and IOAC) as well as the volunteer effort.
More information about the rfc-interest