Subject: RE: [newtrk] IETF Process discussions - next steps

From: "Robert Snively" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:03:31 -0700

Still got the problems.

Haven't got the solutions.

What other forum would you suggest to approach the
problems?

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:01 AM
To: New Track
Subject: Re: [newtrk] IETF Process discussions - next steps

There's been some good discussion but nothing that changes my
opinion that closing this WG is the right thing to do, for
the reasons I gave, above all the lack of a broad consensus
for any specific major change.

The discussion can certainly continue, and I will ask for this
list to be retained if possible, at least for a while.

I would like to thank Scott Bradner for his willingness to
chair this WG, even when things got tricky or frustrating.
Also thanks go to everyone who contributed drafts or ideas.

    Brian Carpenter
    General Area Director
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

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

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:50:04 -0700

On Aug 15, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Robert Snively wrote:

> What other forum would you suggest to approach the problems?

Perhaps a new WG could be chartered to structure RFC related  
information.  To avoid affecting any existing process, this  
structuring would not include any normative language related to any  
existing RFC.  However a process for simple review and acceptance of  
structuring elements should be considered.  Instead of this effort  
increasing administrative burdens, this should result in a net  
reduction once instantiated.  The instantiation of the structure  
could be either incremental or complete depending upon the  
participation within the WG.  In addition to added structure making  
access to the information more user friendly, the structuring should  
have benefits related to coordinating with other SDOs and other  
literature.

Once there is experience in how the structure is used, then review  
the categorization process.  The categorization may then need to be  
raised to higher level structure elements.

-Doug

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:54:11 +0200

Right now it seems that the community doesn't want to invest
effort in solving the problem.

As far as the structure of the RFC indexes are concerned,
that's an operational matter that I believe is best arranged directly
with the RFC Editor as part of the future contract (you will recall
that the RFP for that contract has been issued).

     Brian

Douglas Otis wrote:
> information.  To avoid affecting any existing process, this  structuring 
> would not include any normative language related to any  existing RFC.  
> However a process for simple review and acceptance of  structuring 
> elements should be considered.  Instead of this effort  increasing 
> administrative burdens, this should result in a net  reduction once 
> instantiated.  The instantiation of the structure  could be either 
> incremental or complete depending upon the  participation within the 
> WG.  In addition to added structure making  access to the information 
> more user friendly, the structuring should  have benefits related to 
> coordinating with other SDOs and other  literature.
> 
> Once there is experience in how the structure is used, then review  the 
> categorization process.  The categorization may then need to be  raised 
> to higher level structure elements.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> .
.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:26:12 -0700

On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Right now it seems that the community doesn't want to invest effort  
> in solving the problem.

A small group can not be cognizant of how 700 documents are being  
used in the field years afterwards.  Although ISDs offered a  
solution, the administrative attention needed for reviewing an  
aggregation of modified dated material is still likely best placed on  
material related to current issues.  However ISDs, by providing a  
stable reference, offered significant value.

> As far as the structure of the RFC indexes are concerned, that's an  
> operational matter that I believe is best arranged directly with  
> the RFC Editor as part of the future contract (you will recall that  
> the RFP for that contract has been issued).

More than just a set of indexes is needed.  Composing a structure  
retaining the ISD reference feature will likely produce a greater  
impact on a set of document's stature than would RFC2026 categories.   
While this effort could become a task for the RFC editor, it seems  
defining a suitable structure would be something of general  
interest.  The goal would be to ensure a relational structure is  
created by interested parties in the earliest stages of a document's  
development; a cradle to grave method for tracking endeavours, rather  
than just individual documents.

Is there an RFC Editor related forum?

-Doug
.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:13:34 -0400

For whatever it is worth, I think I am in almost complete
agreement with Doug about the comments below.   But I still do
not believe that, right now, the community is convinced enough
that this is a problem to put more energy into solving it,
especially in the light of probable IESG resistance.

    john

--On Wednesday, 16 August, 2006 12:26 -0700 Douglas Otis
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> A small group can not be cognizant of how 700 documents are
> being  used in the field years afterwards.  Although ISDs
> offered a  solution, the administrative attention needed for
> reviewing an  aggregation of modified dated material is still
> likely best placed on  material related to current issues.
> However ISDs, by providing a  stable reference, offered
> significant value.
> 
>> that's an   operational matter that I believe is best
>> arranged directly with   the RFC Editor as part of the future
>> contract (you will recall that   the RFP for that contract
>> has been issued).
> 
> More than just a set of indexes is needed.  Composing a
> structure  retaining the ISD reference feature will likely
> produce a greater  impact on a set of document's stature than
> would RFC2026 categories.   While this effort could become a
> task for the RFC editor, it seems  defining a suitable
> structure would be something of general  interest.  The goal
> would be to ensure a relational structure is  created by
> interested parties in the earliest stages of a document's
> development; a cradle to grave method for tracking endeavours,
> rather  than just individual documents.
> 
> newtrk
> resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface:
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> mhonarc archive:
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:44:47 +0200

Personally, I believe the best thing that could happen is
for somebody, or a few somebodys, to produce a web page that
does what http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html does
but better*. With that in front of us, it would be much easier
to have a discussion.

* i.e. with the standards track material organized into
"obsoletes" and "updates" threads, with the latest versions
first.

    Brian

.