[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-00.txt

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Sep 9 09:25:30 PDT 2014


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

On 9/4/14, 8:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here are my comments on this draft.

Thank you; the comments are much appreciated!

> 
> 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 numbers are unpublished figures from the Secretariat; one could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.

I'll remove the query re: references, but I'm not sure pointing to the
rfc-editor site metrics will quite work.  For one thing, I don't think
our site metrics go all that far back, and for another, so many people
use tools.ietf.org or datatracker.ietf.org, the numbers don't really
say much.

> 
> ...
>> 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 Series.
> 
> I'd suggest s/change from/update/ because the new format will also 
> be quite tightly prescribed.

Agreed.

> 
> ...
>> 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".

How about "For example"?  And agreed to the additions.

> 
>> 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?

Added
"Regular conversations were held with the IETF, IRTF, IAB, and IAOC
chairs, and the Independent Stream Editor, to discuss high-level
stream requirements.

I've also emphasized that all the RFCs that are/will be published
about the format update must go through the IAB process.  And towards
the end of this section, I state "Finally, the entire process was
reviewed regularly with the RFC Series Oversight Committee and regular
updates provided to the IAB and IESG <xref target="RSOC"/>."  That's
probably enough about IAB involvement, yes?

> 
> ...
>> 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.

Good point.

> 
>> 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.

Very good point.  I'll work on that and post an update to the draft
this afternoon.

- -Heather


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUDyn6AAoJEER/xjINbZoGb10IAJSpvEi1sNXCNH8dA8dTnBr8
FDgx/yYr+YdzAPmFGfTqr/ut5jFp+YFDq2SnfwiAppQyFhOeWJ9u41UpLbT0YsmH
YsAH2fZMlZrZmizBKP9y1fJSkMICyoz+O9wHZpwyRWN7tvFqdslEmQ7VRJcjOjte
zPSfEy0O2KcVTWU+d48akLGgl6ko3hMxGHGypN/bJc3sNICWzcgO6XFS8L+juBiX
YfbAYfDBXPwqJSmQWQcqVsMpxQE/SoRYLG5NVCnpkAHIRJ2FkRJDH2tKjz1oK5uT
Lwd1DlYruFLyUq+uf3Aaq1VTDzwrzaNvaRQ/X++tKrzU1iwKjn9mOc5ECcHEDQk=
=7qeY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list