[rfc-i] Overview document out by Wednesday, and Transitional RFC Editor process toward, during, and just after Beijing

Glenn Kowack Glenn at riveronce.com
Mon Nov 1 08:20:22 PDT 2010

  your description is exactly how I'm proceeding.  And it is indeed subtle: not showing changes would be unclear; adding changes in-line can destroy the narrative flow.  Since this will be the first reading by many, I aim to find a proper balance.

This is made a tad more complex because (as mentioned when announcing the Overview) I'm already calling out differences from RFC 5620.  Like any other engineering effort (no matter how 'soft'), the devil's in the details.  Net, my goal is to facilitate understanding of the recommendations.


On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> It would seem that all Glenn needs to do to cover the case you (Paul) cite is to make sure that he marks explicitly in the overview what items in the Overview do not match what is in the draft proposal.  I presume he was planning to do that.  Your original text seemed to ask for significantly more, although your restatement seems close to this.
> One of the reasons for the overview is that trying to get everything covered completely is what resulted in a 44 page document.
> Yours,
> Joel
> On 11/1/2010 10:48 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 7:15 AM -0700 11/1/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2010 7:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> If at all possible, please make it clear when you are describing what is in the draft and what it is you have heard from others about the draft.
>>> "what you have heard from others"???
>> Correct. As you quote below, Glenn said that he was going to integrate comments from the RSAG. Given the membership of RSAG, it is likely that there will be possibly conflicting comments from different RSAG members.
>>> You want an overview document to be highly annotated with sourcing information?
>> No, nor did I say that. Your hyperbole engine seems to be revving a bit high this morning.
>>> What exactly is the problem you are worried about, particularly given:
>>>      "This overview will include all high-level recommendations in draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.  I will integrate community and RSAG comments received so far into the overview document."
>>> and why are you trying to increase the burden of creating the overview?
>> Because a summary document that says "the document being revised says A, and the proposed change is B" is confusing when the draft in fact says "C", but the author got a comment that said "B". I think it is reasonable to increase the burden on Glenn so that the rest of us do not have to read both his overview and his draft in order to determine if something in the overview is a comment from someone else, given that he might not end up incorporating all the comments if there is disagreement.
>> This is the same problem that has been faced by many IETF WGs in the past, so applying similar process logic seems reasonable.
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>> --VPN Consortium
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list