Subject: Need Clue: What for are I-Ds?

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 06:53:12 -0400

Hello:

For a while I have put an IETF-Announce archive that can be 
accessed through http://ittf.vlsm.org/announce.html

This archive is split into several categories. For example:
I-D Action      http://www.eGroups.com/messages/ietf-i-d_action/
Last Call       http://www.eGroups.com/messages/ietf-last_call/
Protocol Action http://www.eGroups.com/messages/ietf-protocol_action/
Document Action http://www.eGroups.com/messages/ietf-document_action/

However, I am still confused about what to do with an I-D since 
section 2.2 of BCP-9/1996 (the Internet Standard Process 3.00) 
and section 8 of BCP-25/1998 (IETF Working Group Guidelines 
and Procedures) do not say much about this issue.

1. Where to post a comment?

Should I send it to an author, all authors, the IETF list, 
the IESG, the RFC-Editor, or what? Or should I wait until 
a last call?

2. What for is a Last Call ?

I believe that section 8 of BCP-25 is widely accepted by
the community:
   "It is important to note that a Last-Call is intended
   as a brief, final check with the Internet community,
   to make sure that no important concerns have been
   missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should
   not serve as a more general, in-depth review".
Therefore, what will be the point to review an I-D
at the Last Call stage?

3. What is the point to argue in the IETF list?

Section 3 of BCP-25 hinted that someone (the chair) should 
periodically post a summary, and another one (the document 
writer) should write down something. Since no one 
(publicly) summarized the IETF list and I-D drafts are 
seldomly written based on the discussion; what is the 
point to participate in a > 100 email burst discussion?

4. How to recognize the intention of the I-D author(s)?

An I-D has not always sufficent clues of the author(s)
intention. How to know that an I-D is on Standard Track?
(PS. AFAIK, individuals can submit I-Ds for an
Standard Track).

thanks,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Bye bye Redmond! Next stop: San Jose...  http://linux.vlsm.org --

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:02:56 -0400

--On Monday, 10 April, 2000 06:53 -0400 "Rahmat M.
Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> However, I am still confused about what to do with an I-D
> since  section 2.2 of BCP-9/1996 (the Internet Standard
> Process 3.00)  and section 8 of BCP-25/1998 (IETF Working
> Group Guidelines  and Procedures) do not say much about this
> issue.

In the general case, they are just drafts the author wants
exposed for general observation.   In principle, comments may
not even be of interest, although there would be little point in
posting one otherwise.   I-Ds are not publications of record and
have no intrinsic status.

> the IESG, the RFC-Editor, or what? Or should I wait until 

The instructions to I-D authors suggest that they include
explicit contact/ comment information (see
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt).  In its absence,
send notes to the authors or authors (your preference) -- the
author address information is there for a reason, and I-Ds will
not be posted (except in error) without it.  If it is a WG
document (draft-ietf-WGNAME-...) and your comments are
substantive, it would be reasonable to post to the WG list, but
the usual rules about interacting with WGs --watch for a while
first to try to be sure your comments are informed and on-topic
before general postings or meeting comments--- should apply.

Please do not copy the IETF, IESG, or RFC-Editor unless a notice
has been issued on IETF-announce soliciting such comments (or
they are the authors0: as long as they meet format, etc.,
requirements, I-Ds can be posted by anyone on just about any
topic and none of those groups need more clutter about documents
for which they are not, and may never be, responsible.

> Therefore, what will be the point to review an I-D

Just what it says.   Note that there are really several
different types of Last Call (aounced by their text).  For WG
docs, or others for which there has already been announced prior
public, the expectation is that Last Calls will catch only
critical and overlooked issues.  For documents that are proposed
for Standards Track (including BCP in this case)  and that have
not been generally reviewed previously, the Last Call period is
longer, and more general comments are expected.  And the IESG
can choose to post anything --even Informational Documents-- for
Last Call: those postings generally indicate what information
the IESG is looking for and why.

> point to participate in a > 100 email burst discussion?

An excellent question.  In my personal opinion, and in general,
the IETF list should be used for such general discussions only
if there is no other reasonable place to have it or if the topic
is so important as to need general community discussion (e.g.,
if one believes the WG has lost track of general issues or
principles and attempts to refocus it internally have failed.
Others have a broader view, and bring things to the IETF list
earlier, but such discussions can easily run wild (as we have
seen in recent days on other topics).  Each of these
high-traffic, repetitive, discussions causes people whose
opinions might be needed on future subjects to desubscribe,
which is usually a net loss to the IETF community.

> (PS. AFAIK, individuals can submit I-Ds for an

If it isn't clear, and it is important, ask the author in
private email.  But, as we have discussed at some length
privately, unless the document is working group material, be
prepared to accept the author's answer: the nature of
non-WG-I-Ds is that neither you, nor anyone else, have the right
to insist that the author include material, other than that
required by RFC-2026, that lies outside the author's
preferences/ intent for the document. 

    john