Subject: Re: WG Chairs' training/information/resources?

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:43:10 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Bill Sommerfeld wr
ites:
>> It was even during an Authors' 48 I think, which was certainly a
>> late surprise. This isn't a complaint, just an observation that
>> procedural changes shouldn't be implemented before they've been
>> agreed and announced.
>
>Not to mention having some way to grandfather documents "in flight"
>where appropriate..

There have been a lot of complaints about the normative/informative 
references split.  The odd thing is that the purpose of the split is 
speed up RFC processing -- it avoids long queue holds while waiting for 
non-normative I-Ds to be ready.

In other words, though the split has caused one problem, it was in an 
attempt to solve another.  I think it's helped.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:01:18 -0500

> The odd thing is that the purpose of the split is speed up RFC
> processing -- it avoids long queue holds while waiting for

If that's the only reason for the policy, then could it be made a
recommendation rather than a requirement?   

					- Bill

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:24:09 -0500

> recommendation rather than a requirement?

I wouldn't agree with that change.  Having the split allows the
RFC editor to figure out the dependency without going back and
asking the author.  I agree with Steve that it has helped.

Brian

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:48:57 -0500

> asking the author.  I agree with Steve that it has helped.

Where I stand it looks like a purely bureaucratic obstacle.  

If all the I-D references within the documents are "local references"
within a document set which was last-called and went to the IESG
together, the requirement adds no value.

					- Bill

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:47:38 +0100

> together, the requirement adds no value.

I don't think I've seen such a set yet.
The more common case is where all of the references are informative; 
inserting the word "informative" into the section heading seems to work 
fine there.

           Harald