Subject: Re: [INDEP] Issues in draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:29:00 -0400

--On Friday, 09 June, 2006 14:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> It may well be the case that an independent submission has
> been reviewed
> by people who are active in the IETF. But that is not the same
> as it being
> reviewed explicitly by a WG, a team such as the MIB Doctors,
> etc. Also,
> BCP 92 intentionally limits IESG review (and by implication,
> any review
> in the IETF requested by the IESG) to look at potential
> *interference*
> with IETF work. So the IESG Note inserted in these documents
> really
> can't take account of anything but the absence of IETF
> technical review.
> To be precise, the form of words defined in BCP 92 is:
> 
>        The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the
>        fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular
> notes that
>        the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for
> such
>        things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate
>        interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor
> has chosen to
>        publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of
> this RFC
>        should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
> implementation
>        and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.
> 
> I don't believe that this is pejorative and I don't believe it
> needs
> to be changed; I suspect John may disagree.

As you suspect, John disagrees.  I think the issue here actually
encompasses several of the other issue you have raised so, in
the interest of brevity, let me address it alone.

Suppose the IESG makes a determination that, within the IESG's
knowledge as a management/ steering group for the IETF, there
are no substantive conflicts with ongoing IETF work.  There is
no doubt in my mind that the IESG is the entity best qualified
to make that decision; I supported IESG review of that type when
it was first suggested.  However, until and unless we start
assuming that members of the IESG, by virtue of their
appointment, have universal insight into the community, that
disclaimer is overreaching.  I would note that the vast majority
of informational documents that are submitted via the IESG are
not "reviewed in the IETF" via a formal approval process either,
but no disclaimer language is attached to them other than "not a
standard".  That makes this extensive and somewhat lavish
disclaimer appear to be an effort to denigrate documents that
don't come through the IESG.

I also note that there are disclaimers of warrantees in the ISOC
boilerplate, disclaimers that apply even to standards-track
documents.   Repeating a variation on that disclaimer here as a
specific disclaimer by the IESG implies IESG authority over the
publication process that is counter to the notion of independent
submission and also implies that any independently-submitted
document is inferior to all IESG-approved documents.

Finally, any sentence starting with "The IETF <verb>"
(disclaims, asserts, ...) has always, in every other context,
been believed to be inappropriate unless there is formal
discussion within the IETF community leading to evidence of
rough consensus.  I agree that requiring Last Call for every
public assertion of "harm" would be immensely burdensome.  I
also believe that public assertions of harm _to the Internet_
should be rare.

I want to stress that I'm not objecting to the IESG asserting
that a document could interfere cause confusion with active IETF
work and asking that publication be deferred.  If used within
reason, decided upon promptly, and subject ot appeal, I think
that is a useful and important mechanism.   If am only concerned
about the leap from "we didn't review this ourselves" or "we
don't like this but are not obligated to either explain why or
show community consensus for our position" to "this is
potentially harmful to the Internet and should either not be
published or should be published only with a disclaimer whose
implication is that it is likely to be dangerous".

If a disclaimer is needed, the appropriate disclaimer is "not an
IETF document" or, even more accurately, "not the result of an
IETF process".   Period.   Beyond that, the IESG either has
knowledge based on IETF review and consensus or it does not.  If
it does, I'm sure the RFC Editor would be interested in hearing
about it.  If it does not, then there should be no text implying
otherwise or even that these documents are especially poorly
reviewed.

Just my opinion, of course.

      john

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:47:10 -0700

>>        and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

I actually like the wording of this, except that it ought to apply
equally to IETF-reviewed discussions, i.e., the Internet community
disclaims...

We've seen too many cases where the IETF process dropped the ball on
things that went through its own process; to imply that lack of IETF
review makes a document potentially less fit is incorrect IMO.

...
> document is inferior to all IESG-approved documents.

Very well put.

...
> IETF process". 

That sounds fine. I might even take that as an indication that a
document hasn't been remuddled by the IETF, which may ultimately imply
that it may be *more* fit for its intended use. ;-)

Joe