Subject: [INDEP] Re: Preview of draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:47:26 -0500

I'll let Olaf comment on most of these issues, but
wanted to respond to one:

Dave Thaler wrote:
> 3) There is a normative reference to an Internet Draft dated August 2004
> (rfc2223bis).  I would propose removing the reference to that draft, and
> just referencing RFC 2223.  (The RFC Editor will of course update
> the reference during publication to the most recent RFC at that time.)
> 

I searched for instances of 2223 in the document, and believe
the current text is fine.  (I wasn't clear, from the above, whether
you thought it was okay as is, or wanted to do further surgery).

The issue with 2223bis is that it a) is significantly different than
RFC2223, b) has been languishing for quite a while (a lot longer than
since 2004) and c) has nevertheless been a guiding document in spite
of its status.

So, I don't believe you can just drop mention of it.  The current
text refers to RFC2223 and its successors, and that seems about
right.

Leslie.

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

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:50:35 -0500

Well, it's certainly valuable that it get posted
as an Internet-Draft as soon as possible.

I'm pretty sure we can talk the Secretariat
into posting it as an -00 in the IAB stream --
not because the IAB is special, but because
this really is not an -00 document.

So -- I suggest:

	. add a note ("to be removed at the time
	  of publication") pointing out that this
	  is the successor to draft-klensin...

	. submit it as draft-iab-rfc-independent-00

I'll send a note to the Secretariat.

Leslie.

Dave Thaler wrote:
> It also occurs to me that we may need to submit
> it as draft-klensin-independent-06.txt since
> the -00 deadline passed, and then resubmit it as
> draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt once the submission
> window opens again.
>  
> (Alternatively, just wait until it opens again.)
>  
> I will check with the rest of the IAB on which
> they prefer.
>  
> -Dave

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:00:05 -0500

Dave,

Dave Thaler wrote:
> The issue is here:
>>   particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
>>   in more detail in [RFC2223] and a working draft of an update to it
>>   [RFC2223bis].
> 
> Since [RFC2223bis] is a normative reference, this means that the draft
> as is could not be published as an RFC until after [RFC2223bis] appears
> as an RFC. 

I believe the intent was to refer to the *working draft*.  Which
means, no, there was not an expectation of waiting for it to be
published as an RFC.

If it needs to be made clearer that it is informative, perhaps

"The process is described in [RFC2223].  Further information can
be found in the working draft of an update of that document
[RFC2223bis]."

Leslie.

  If this is the intent, then I think the sentence should be
> changed to:
> 
>>   particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
>>   in more detail in [RFC2223bis].
> 
> If it is not the intent, then I think the sentence should be changed to:
> 
>>   particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
>>   in more detail in [RFC2223] and its successors.
> 
> -Dave
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:47 PM
>> To: Dave Thaler
>> Cc: [email-masked]; IAB
>> Subject: Re: Preview of draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt
>>
>>

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:34:46 -0800

Since [RFC2223bis] is a normative reference, this means that the draft
as is could not be published as an RFC until after [RFC2223bis] appears
as an RFC.  If this is the intent, then I think the sentence should be

-Dave

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 00:34:46 -0800

-Dave

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 00:28:25 -0800

Attached is the current pre-submission version of the document.

I plan to submit this at approximately midnight PST, and will attempt to
address any additional issues (or issues I might have missed, if any are
pointed out) raised prior to then.

Remaining issues:

1) Issue "4. Independent publication of documents resulting from IETF
process" from Olaf's summary.

Olaf proposed no change unless text was contributed.  Jari had
volunteered to submit some text for this (IANA issues, etc.) which I am
still waiting for.

2) There was an apparent contradiction between two paragraphs in the
text in Olaf's summary of consensus.  Specifically the old sentence:

> Unsolicited reviews will be shared with the
> author, including the identity of the reviewer.

was contradicted by the newer text in the same section:

> At minimum, the author of every document shall receive a written
> summary of the review(s).  Reviewer anonymity is discussed in
> Section 6.

To adhere to the newer consensus regarding anonymity, I have removed the
first sentence that prevented anonymity, and moved the sentence
"Unsolicited reviews from parties independent of the author are
welcome at any time."
up a few paragraphs to where it flowed better.  

I hope this accurately reflects the consensus of this list.

4) Need to add the "IAB Members at the time of this writing".  Will do
this before submitting.

-Dave

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 00:28:25 -0800

Remaining issues:

-Dave
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.iMTIuMi4gQ2hhbmdlcyBmb3IgLTA0ICAuIC4gLiAuIC4gLiAuIC4gLiAuIC4gLiAuIC4gLiAuIC4g
b252ZW5pZW5jZSBetf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:58:21 +0100

> volunteered to submit some text for this (IANA issues, etc.) which  

Jari submitted that to the list about 30 minutes ago which means your  
submission may have crossed yours :-(.

>> summary of the review(s).  Reviewer anonymity is discussed in

I do not read that as a full contradiction. IMHO section 7 (Nit: in  
the new document the section numbers have changed) is not working  
towards providing anonymity but about working towards making the  
review and the identity of the reviewer public.

> I hope this accurately reflects the consensus of this list.

Yes, in my interpretation of the previous section 6 and the current  
section 7, it does.

> the reference during publication to the most recent RFC at that time.)

Leslie's suggestion that explicitly makes 2223bis a informative ref  
works for me.

> 4) Need to add the "IAB Members at the time of this writing".  Will do

I hope you are able to merge in Jari's comments before submissions.

--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:17:01 +0200

> Attached is the current pre-submission version of the document.
After a quick look, it looks pretty good.

> volunteered to submit some text for this (IANA issues, etc.) which I am
Sorry. But as Olaf mentioned, I posted a suggestion a short while ago,
hopefully you are still awake and able to deal with that... there were
two specific text fragments, one for syncing the treatment of was-in-
the-IETF-process submissions with this and iesg-sponsoring-guidelines,
and another one to note that independent submissions are under
the usual IANA rules.

Jari

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:32:01 -0800

Sorry, I didn't get your text in time to incorporate.  I did craft a
fragment regarding IANA myself, since I didn't get the IANA fragment in
time.  My fragment, in the section on "Request for Publication", reads:

> If the document requires any IANA allocations, authors should take
> care to check the assignment policy for the relevant name space,
> since some assignment policies (e.g., "IETF Consensus") cannot be
> used by Independent Submissions.  See RFC 2434 [RFC2434] for more
> information.

Danny McPherson sent a few editorial comments after my submission as
well.

I will incorporate both sets of feedback in an update once the
submission window opens again.

Thanks,
-Dave

> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:17 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Subject: Re: [INDEP] Preview of draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt
> 
> Dave Thaler kirjoitti:

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:34:32 +0200

>> used by Independent Submissions.  See RFC 2434 [RFC2434] for more

I'm very happy with that text. Please forget my
proposal on the IANA part.

>> submission window opens again.

Ok. Thanks.

Jari

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:00:35 +0100

>>> submission window opens again.

So what is left is the second suggestion by Jari (copied below) and  
the editorials by Danny. I suppose that, if Danny's suggestions are  
minor and purely editorial, we could send those to the RFC-editor  
with version 00 (I wouldn't mind absorbing the slight delay that  
comes with waiting for the submission window to open).

Jari, I suppose that draft-iesg has a finished, or almost finished  
last call. I don't think there are any points raised that interact  
with this document, correct?

--Olaf

For reference the remaining item:

> OLD:
>    o  Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not  
> standardized.
>       While many documents of this type are published via the IESG
>       approval path (see RFC 3932, Section 1 [RFC3932]), the  
> independent
>       submission path has traditionally been open to them.  Because of
>       their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process and WG
>       activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact statements of
>       relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that all
>       such documents should be published only at IESG request.  In any
>       event, these documents are published for the historical record.
> NEW:
>    o  Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not  
> standardized.
>        While many documents of this type are still published in the  
> IETF
>        document stream [RFC2026,draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines] as
>        Informational or Experimental RFCs, the independent submission
>        path has traditionally been open to them as well. However,  
> because
>        of their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process
>        and WG activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact  
> statements of
>        relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that  
> such
>        documents should normally be published via the IETF stream. In
>        any event, these documents are published for the historical  
> record.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:55:14 +0200

> with this document, correct?

Right, not to my knowledge.

Jari