User Tools

Site Tools


newstream

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
newstream [2012/07/05 13:08]
rsewikiadmin created
newstream [2013/07/29 11:36] (current)
rsewikiadmin
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 In May 2012, a group focusing on federated internet identity policies called REFEDs contacted the RFC Series Editor regarding potentially becoming a new stream. ​ Determining if their documents would add to the quality and value of the Series, whether those documents should be published through an existing stream, and what the financial implications will provide an excellent "​pilot"​ to explore what it would take to add a new document stream to the Series.  ​ In May 2012, a group focusing on federated internet identity policies called REFEDs contacted the RFC Series Editor regarding potentially becoming a new stream. ​ Determining if their documents would add to the quality and value of the Series, whether those documents should be published through an existing stream, and what the financial implications will provide an excellent "​pilot"​ to explore what it would take to add a new document stream to the Series.  ​
 +
 +==== Closing Action ====
 +The RSE and the RSOC agreed at the RSOC retreat that the proposal made by Nevil Brownlee, ISE, to use the Independent Stream (see proposal below) will be used for the immediate use case of REFEDs. ​ This solution will be preferred over reopening the question of creating new streams if and when other groups request a new stream for their documents.
  
  
 RSE Actions: RSE Actions:
-  * Open discussion with REFEDS, keeping RSOC and RPC informed +  * Open discussion with [[https://​refeds.org/​|REFEDs]], keeping RSOC and RPC informed 
-  * Explore any reasonable alternatives (a new, separate contract with AMS? Feed REFED docs through the Independent Stream? Other?)  +    * List of [[streamquery|questions]] for a new stream (DONE) 
-  * Formula for financial costs potentially associated with a new Stream? ​+  * Explore any reasonable alternatives (a new, separate contract with AMS? Feed REFED docs through the Independent Stream? Other?) (N/A
 +  * Formula for financial costs potentially associated with a new Stream? ​(N/A)
  
  
Line 25: Line 29:
   * provide input on how to determine quality   * provide input on how to determine quality
  
 +Current proposal (from the Independent Submissions Editor) :
  
 +   1. When one of those organisations makes an Independent Submission, it
 +   would be in the form of an Internet Draft, with a paragraph in its
 +   ​introduction clearly stating how it was developed, how it was
 +   ​reviewed,​ and how strong a consensus it achieved.
 +   
 +   2. The ISE would review it (like any other submission),​ and possibly
 +   get some reviews from the IETF community so as to check that it
 +   ​clearly was of interest to the Internet Community, i.e. the
 +   ​readers and users of RFCs.
 +   
 +   3. When satisfied that the draft is suitable for publishing, the
 +   ISE could ask the ISEB to see whether any of them object to its
 +   being published because it did not seem to be of interest
 +   to our community.
 +   
 +   4. After that the document would go to IESG for its 5742 review,
 +   then - after any final improvements - it would be published. ​
  
 Costs/​Benefits Costs/​Benefits
Line 35: Line 57:
 Project schedules: While important, this may not impact schedules for RFC Format or Style Guide efforts. Project schedules: While important, this may not impact schedules for RFC Format or Style Guide efforts.
  
-Reputation: Must determine selection and process criteria in order to make sure the quality of the RFC Series as a whole is maintained+Reputation: ​ 
 +  * Must determine selection and process criteria in order to make sure the quality of the RFC Series as a whole is maintained 
 +  * Consider the concern regarding how to mitigate confusion (already strong within the community) around an additional stream. (If existing streams are not understood, it is possible that a new stream would only confuse matters further.) 
 +  * Consider what would be required to close a stream, both in the cases of a voluntary closure versus one done perhaps because quality of documents is not up to Series expectations.
  
 Estimated completion date: TBD Estimated completion date: TBD
newstream.1341518916.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/07/05 13:08 by rsewikiadmin