On 8 Oct 2015, at 11:08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:06:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
What am I missing?
From my POV, nothing. Paul seemed to be suggesting that the current
arrangements should be published somehow other than as "an IETF
document". Maybe he meant "send it up the Independent Submissions
editor with ICANN staff on the top". I don't really know.
I did. To me, an organization that wants to publish its procedures
should do so itself. If that organization wants to duplicate those
procedures in the RFC series, then it should do so through the ISE, not
wasting the time of the IETF.
If that is what he meant, then I think the distinction is not that
interesting. IME nobody except a tiny fraction of IETF participants
makes the ISE/IETF product distinction.
My preference is not because of the distinction of the series, but in
the review process. I am sure that, no matter how often we say "this is
documenting current practice only", people in the IETF will want to make
changes based on different design preferences. That is a waste of
everyone's time.
If it's not what he meant, then I see no value in creating a new
publication path.
Agree. (Mind you, if ICANN published many procedure documents in the RFC
series, it might be worth considering having an ICANN stream in the
future, but that consideration is likely to cause so much consternation
it is not worth trying.)
IMO, what is current practice, whatever it is, ought to be in the
document.
Fully agree.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
