Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:51:34 -0500

On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:20:54 AM -0500 The IESG 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
> Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
>    <draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document looks good to me.  However, I am compelled to ask why it 
should be published as an Informational RFC instead of as an ION.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:16:36 -0600

And we should ask this question every time we see an informational process 
RFC last call...

The best reason to publish a process document as an RFC is because it will 
be a BCP (IONs aren't BCPs). Since this one won't be a BCP, and given that 
guidance could change over time, I'd think an ION is more reasonable.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:58:58 -0500

Hi.

I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will
also.  In the interim, two procedural remarks...

(1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
describe two pieces of the "how a document that does not
originate in a WG may be reviewed and published" space.  Each
contains some text that suggests that some documents are better
handled via the other path. The IAB has made a request for input
on the "independent" document and now we have a Last Call on
this one.  

As editor of the "rfc-independent" document, I am awaiting
instructions from the IAB as to what, if anything, to do next,
but suspect that the recommendation below would be better
applied to -06 rather than -05 of that document.

I strongly encourage members of the community to review the two
documents side by side to ensure that everyone is satisfied that
they are consistent and that any questions about the overall
non-WG submission space is adequately covered by one or the
other of them.

I also ask, and hope others will join me in asking, that the
IESG and IAB take explicit responsibility for coordinating and
ensuring consistency between these two documents (and, if
necessary, with draft-iab-rfc-editor).  If they are not
consistent enough that actions based on them are predictable, I
fear we can look forward to some difficulties.  It might even be
useful for the two groups to coordinate titles sufficiently that
someone looking for information will easily understand that the
two describe somewhat parallel paths and ways in which those
paths may or may not be alternatives to each other.

(2) This document is not the product of a working group or of
extended open discussion in the community.  Version -00 was
posted around the time of the San Diego meeting and received
very little public discussion.  The current version was posted
at the beginning of this month; there has been little discussion
of it either (at least on public lists -- as the
Acknowledgements suggest, I've had some input into it via
private discussions).  The document does not even indicate a
mailing list on which it can be discussed.  One presumes that
comments could have been sent to the IESG by those who happened
to read the I-Ds, but that is a o] helo=bs.jck.com)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEvki-00078e-7c
	for [email-masked]; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:59:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:58:58 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
 (Guidance on Area  Director Sponsoring of Documents) to
 Informational RFC

Hi.

I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will
also.  In the interim, two procedural remarks...

(1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
describe two pieces of the "how a document that does not
originate in a WG may be reviewed and published" space.  Each
contains some text that suggests that some documents are better
handled via the other path. The IAB has made a request for input
on the "independent" document and now we have a Last Call on
this one.  

As editor of the "rfc-independent" document, I am awaiting
instructions from the IAB as to what, if anything, to do next,
but suspect that the recommendation below would be better
applied to -06 rather than -05 of that document.

I strongly encourage members of the community to review the two
documents side by side to ensure that everyone is satisfied that
they are consistent and that any questions about the overall
non-WG submission space is adequately covered by one or the
other of them.

I also ask, and hope others will join me in asking, that the
IESG and IAB take explicit responsibility for coordinating and
ensuring consistency between these two documents (and, if
necessary, with draft-iab-rfc-editor).  If they are not
consistent enough that actions based on them are predictable, I
fear we can look forward to some difficulties.  It might even be
useful for the two groups to coordinate titles sufficiently that
someone looking for information will easily understand that the
two describe somewhat parallel paths and ways in which those
paths may or may not be alternatives to each other.

(2) This document is not the product of a working group or of
extended open discussion in the community.  Version -00 was
posted around the time of the San Diego meeting and received
very little public discussion.  The current version was posted
at the beginning of this month; there has been little discussion
of it either (at least on public lists -- as the
Acknowledgements suggest, I've had some input into it via
private discussions).  The document does not even indicate a
mailing list on which it can be discussed.  One presumes that
comments could have been sent to the IESG by those who happened
to read the I-Ds, but that is a one-way communications path.  

If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the
particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of
alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then
it should probably be published as an ION, not an Informational
RFC.  If they intend it to be definitive information for the
community, especially information that they expect to reference
as to why something ] helo=bs.jck.com)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEvki-00078e-7c
	for [email-masked]; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:59:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:58:58 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
 (Guidance on Area  Director Sponsoring of Documents) to
 Informational RFC

Hi.

I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will
also.  In the interim, two procedural remarks...

(1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
describe two pieces of the "how a document that does not
originate in a WG may be reviewed and published" space.  Each
contains some text that suggests that some documents are better
handled via the other path. The IAB has made a request for input
on the "independent" document and now we have a Last Call on
this one.  

As editor of the "rfc-independent" document, I am awaiting
instructions from the IAB as to what, if anything, to do next,
but suspect that the recommendation below would be better
applied to -06 rather than -05 of that document.

I strongly encourage members of the community to review the two
documents side by side to ensure that everyone is satisfied that
they are consistent and that any questions about the overall
non-WG submission space is adequately covered by one or the
other of them.

I also ask, and hope others will join me in asking, that the
IESG and IAB take explicit responsibility for coordinating and
ensuring consistency between these two documents (and, if
necessary, with draft-iab-rfc-editor).  If they are not
consistent enough that actions based on them are predictable, I
fear we can look forward to some difficulties.  It might even be
useful for the two groups to coordinate titles sufficiently that
someone looking for information will easily understand that the
two describe somewhat parallel paths and ways in which those
paths may or may not be alternatives to each other.

(2) This document is not the product of a working group or of
extended open discussion in the community.  Version -00 was
posted around the time of the San Diego meeting and received
very little public discussion.  The current version was posted
at the beginning of this month; there has been little discussion
of it either (at least on public lists -- as the
Acknowledgements suggest, I've had some input into it via
private discussions).  The document does not even indicate a
mailing list on which it can be discussed.  One presumes that
comments could have been sent to the IESG by those who happened
to read the I-Ds, but that is a one-way communications path.  

If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the
particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of
alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then
it should probably be published as an ION, not an Informational
RFC.  If they intend it to be definitive information for the
community, especially information that they expect to reference
as to why something ne-way communications path.  

If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the
particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of
alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then
it should probably be published as an ION, not an Informational
RFC.  If they intend it to be definitive information for the
community, especially information that they expect to reference
as to why something is or is not possible or whether procedures
are being followed, a two-week Last Call is, IMO, inappropriate
and inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions in RFC 2026.

    john

--On Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 10:20 -0500 The IESG
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering
> Steering  Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action.  Please send
> substantive comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by
> 2007-02-21. Exceptionally,  comments may be sent to
> [email-masked] instead. In either case, please  retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.