Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #875] should initial registry contents be made into an internet-draft?

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:48:49 -0700

Hi -

(co-chair hat ON)

The question of whether the initial registry contents should be posted as
an internet draft (not to be confused with the question of publication as
an RFC) was raised in
 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00013.html

The discussion hasn't shown overwhelming support or opposition, but
I believe that there is a rough consensus to post the initial registry contents
in an i-d.  I'd like to get confirmation or this reading, so if you have
strong arguments pro or contra, now is the time to make them before
we mark this issue "resolved".

Randy

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:28:50 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> if you have strong arguments pro or contra

Pro, something like RfC 4021 is nice.  If Doug somehow forces
page footers below %% lines, and page headers above the next
registry entry.  Please no big gap like 4021-3864.  Bye, Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:58:04 -0400

> registry entry.  Please no big gap like 4021-3864.  Bye, Frank

This is academic.  An I-D that is not intended to become an RFC does not
have to follow RFC format in any way.

-- 
John Cowan                              <[email-masked]>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              http://www.reutershealth.com
                Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
                Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:28:01 +0200

John Cowan wrote:

> This is academic.  An I-D that is not intended to become an
> RFC does not have to follow RFC format in any way.

This ticket stuff with its numerous questions irritates me.
What's the difference between 875 and 878, why is 878 posted
twice ?  When I said that I like RfC 4021 I meant RfC format,
not some dummy I-D.
                     Bye, Frank

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 20:49:55 -0700

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #875] should initial registry contents bemade into an internet-draft?
...
> have to follow RFC format in any way.
...

Actually,the requirements in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html
and http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html will result in something that
is remarkably RFC-like in format.  The secretariat is becoming stricter
in enforcing these long-standing requirements.

Randy

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:04:32 -0400

> in enforcing these long-standing requirements.

Yeah, you're right.  We don't want the registry to be an I-D, because
I-D's are designed for potential RFCs.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  [email-masked]
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:07:20 -0700

Hi -

(co-chair hat ON)

> From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:28 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #875] should initial registry contents be made into an internet-draft?
...
> This ticket stuff with its numerous questions irritates me.

Consider it motivation to get these issues resolved.
Stream-of-consciousness is nice for brainstorming sessions,
but we have a bunch of specific issues to resolve, as well as
a couple of thorny questions from the charter that haven't
seen much discussion.  The tickets will allow us to reach
closure quickly on the easy stuff, and I hope keep the
heavy discussion threads on track.

...

The decision by a working group to post something in the form of
an internet-draft does NOT automatically mean that it is going to
become an RFC.  The original text had the WG chair hand a file
to the secretariat.  We *could* do this, but giving the secretariat
an i-d or an RFC is a more normal way of initializing a registry.

The heart of this question is whether anyone sees any particular
value in requesting that the i-d be published as an RFC.  Since you
obviously do care about this, it's a good thing we asked these
numerous irritating questions.  Otherwise we would have treated
the choice between i-d-only and i-d->RFC as simply a question
of IANA's preference.

By indicating a strong preference for publication of the initial registry
as an RFC, you've shifted the debate to the question of whether
anyone would have a strong objection to publication of the initial
registry in that form.

Randy

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:15:33 +0200

> Consider it motivation to get these issues resolved.

It doesn't motivate me if each article from the ticket system
is posted at least twice, sometimes three times, in one case
six times.  This mail bot is out of control.  The day before
yesterday there were 512 articles in the archive, now we are
at 788, +50% in less than two days.  Look at the end of this:

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru:726>

> Stream-of-consciousness is nice for brainstorming sessions

I know it as threads, it has a Message-ID and References, and
if the threads drifts somebody will update the Subject.

Now all I see in overview mode are a lot of "Re: [psg.com #8"
from "rt+ltru..." (truncated as indicated in this mode).  And
this "rt+ltru..." is not necessarily you, sometimes it's
Addison's reply, but always starting a new thread.  Confusing.

> you've shifted the debate to the question of whether anyone
> would have a strong objection to publication of the initial
> registry in that form.

John doesn't want an RfC.  An I-D not meant to become an RfC is
pointless, it would only spoil Doug's format with page headers,
IPR boilerplates and disclaimers, security considerations, etc.

And xml2rfc has no unpaginated output, if that's how Doug would
create an I-D.
                Bye, Frank