Subject: [newtrk] Something else for the newtrk charter - IETF work documents

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:29:21 -0800

Hi,

Here is a topic which I believe needs to be in the purview of
newtrk.  I want to raise it in the IESG's review of newtrk for
WG approval (AD hat on) and wanted it to raise it here first
(AD hat off):

  Development of a primary marker to distinguish documents 
  originating from the IETF from those originating from the 
  RFC Editor.  

This issue has many details.  An example of complication 
because they aren't distinct arises from the RFC Editor policy
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.dnpn) allowing
archival Informational RFCs of rejected WG drafts.  Because these
become RFCs alongside the standards, they can be extremely confusing
to the community, as many have commented to me.

This topic seems an important one for the proposed WG.

Sorry for the late proposition.

Allison
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:23:15 -0600

Dear Allison,

I agree with the issue - is this issue best handled in a WG, or were
you thinking that the WG would need to be aware of any changes in this
area anyway, so should be involved up front?

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allison Mankin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:29 PM
Subject: [newtrk] Something else for the newtrk charter - IETF work
documents

> newtrk
resources:_____________________________________________________
> mhonarc archive:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:18:07 -0800

Spencer,

> area anyway, so should be involved up front?

Continuing to have my AD hat off here and be a participant:

My thought was that this would be a good addition to the charter
of the WG - that changes in the document tracks could be designed
and proposed from the WG.  This might be a plan that does not
take immediate effect, because of Administrative considerations,
but it would be extremely helpful for there to be a consensus on
what the distinct document series would look like.  I think the
WG should tackle this within its charter.

Allison

.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:51:27 -0500 (EST)

I think this general idea is quite a good one - some of the
complexities MAY require discussion (but I'm not sure that it is the case)
maybe this can be delt with with a quick discussion with the RFC Editor

Scott

----

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:35:06 -0800

Scott,

> maybe this can be delt with with a quick discussion with the RFC Editor

I think we all agree - that it needs to be discussed, and that it needs to 
be discussed publicly, and that newtrk is a more reasonable place than 
other places to have that discussion.

What do people think of adding this modified version of Allison's text to 
the charter below points a/ to d/ (the "discussions will cover"):

e/Development of a primary marker to distinguish documents
  originating from the IETF from those not originating from the IETF.

The charter is before the IESG now, and the IESG has agreed that this seems 
to make sense.

                  Harald
.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:49:26 -0500 (EST)

works for me

---

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:35:06 -0800

Scott,

                  Harald

.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:20:52 -0800

Harald,

>  originating from the IETF from those not originating from the IETF.

I think this sounds like a good thing to add this to the charter.  One 
question, what is meant by a "primary marker"?

Thanks,
Bob

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:51:57 -0800

--On 19. februar 2004 15:20 -0800 Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Harald,
>
>> What do people think of adding this modified version of Allison's text
>> to  the charter below points a/ to d/ (the "discussions will cover"):
>>

Good question - Allison, what was your thinking when suggesting this?

The way I think about it, it could be restated as "an easily recognizable 
method" - but just how easily recognizable it would have to be is a subject 
for debate.

For example, the "status stickers" in the RFC Index are not very visible; 
the difference between I-Ds and RFCs is extremely visible.

               Harald

.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:08:10 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]
> the difference between I-Ds and RFCs is extremely visible.

Tagging IETF documents clearly makes sense, tagging standards-track
documents clearly (as we do for full standards today) makes sense, and
there may be one or two more discriminators for tagging - could the
working group charter include a proposal for more visible tagging
without specifying one discriminator up front?

Spencer

.