Subject: Re: Please review updated 1id-guidelines

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:43:36 -0500

>  Date: 2005-03-02 07:59
>  From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

> Bruce,
> 
>  > It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
>  > I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
> 
> At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
> flexibility in operational procedures than we can get from the
> BCP mechanism.

Rationale for BCP:
1. I suspect we want the procedures to be readily visible to potential
   authors
2. I suspect we want authors to know that the issues addressed in the
   guidelines have the backing of the IESG
3. The suggested IANA Considerations section implies some sort of RFC

> Asking for community input, and posting the resulting 
> text on the web site, seems to give that flexibility.

Perhaps, but it is not clear that the document has any standing, nor
is it necessarily easy to find (*which* web site(s)?).  Would IANA
take note of direction given in some random (non-RFC) document?

If there's another sort of official document for administrative
procedures and guidelines, that might work; are there?  If so, where
does one find them?
 
It's not clear what sort of flexibility would be lacking in a BCP
RFC, given that guidelines can be expressed in RFC 2119 terms "MAY",
"OPTIONAL", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and even "MUST" where
appropriate, and that BCPs can be (and are) updated when necessary.

What sort of flexibility did you have in mind?

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

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:37:31 -0500

One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing 
drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents 
appropriately.  This could be a pointer to the xml2rfc information (with 
associated RFC), to tools for nroff, etc., but it would be very helpful to 
tell potential authors how to easily/accurately obtain the format, rather 
than just specifying it.

With the exception of an informative reference to RFC 2629, I'm not sure 
this is something that can be in the guidelines, but it could certainly be 
on the web-page.

Alia

At 01:43 PM 3/2/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > Â > It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> > Â > I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
> >

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:08:22 +0100

Bruce,

Bruce Lilly wrote:
>> > It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
>> > I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
>>

Yes, and right there behind the "Internet Drafts" link on www.ietf.org
meets that.

>    guidelines have the backing of the IESG

Indeed. That can be made clear in the text.

> 3. The suggested IANA Considerations section implies some sort of RFC

Certainly, there's no doubt that the guidelines need to refer to
BCP RFCs when approriate.

> Perhaps, but it is not clear that the document has any standing,

I suspect that the fact that the IESG minutes its approval of
an update would serve.

>  nor
>> is it necessarily easy to find (*which* web site(s)?). 

See above.

> Would IANA

If we ask them to.

> procedures and guidelines, that might work; are there?  If so, where

Good question. We may need to formalize that... that operational
procedures, after consensus discussion and IESG approval, are
effective as soon as posted at www.ietf.org.

> appropriate, and that BCPs can be (and are) updated when necessary.

But it takes 6 months to a year to do so.
> What sort of flexibility did you have in mind?

2 week reaction time when we find a need for operational changes.

    Brian