[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-iab-xml2rfcv2-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 11:32:08 PST 2015


Joe,

Thanks for answering my point.

> However, I will say that having easily-understandable modern document 
> formats to get the technical work of the IETF done *is* an architecture 
> issue, at least in my mind.

I agree; but it's one that is properly delegated to the RFC Editor.
I'm perfectly happy as long as the IAB doesn't get back into micro-
management of the RFC series as it was doing three or four years ago.

Regards
    Brian

On 16/01/2015 09:08, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 1/12/15, 2:08 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the explanation. I can live with it; but I am very concerned
>> that the IAB should maximise its time spent on Internet architecture
>> and minimise its time spent on the rest. So in this case I really hope
>> that the IAB merely wields its rubber stamp.
> 
> (IAB hat on, but not speaking for the IAB)
> We're happy to continue to support the RSOC and the RFC editor with 
> appropriately-composed stamps. 
> 
>> (And I didn't cc the IAB because I assume that interested IAB members
>> are here anyway.)
> 
> If this had turned into a problem, I would have brought it to more 
> attention from the IAB, which *would* have cut into our time spent on 
> other architecture issues.
> 
> However, I will say that having easily-understandable modern document 
> formats to get the technical work of the IETF done *is* an architecture 
> issue, at least in my mind.  When I'm doing architecture for large 
> applications, the documentation, change control, testing, measurement, 
> configuration, etc. are all a part of the system (not just the code), and 
> the Internet has the same needs with respect to protocols.
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list