[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question - Can WG put processes in place with more definitionthan RFC2026



--On onsdag, april 02, 2003 04:50:06 -0800 todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

The Vetting Process for anything done under RFC2026 is undefined. This
allows the WG chairs to arbitrarily decide what is and is not a vetting
session on a per-protocol basis. And this clearly is not what RFC2026's
language regarding a fair and open place for standards is meant to refer
to. Or one where tee same sets of metrics are used from submittal to
submittal.
The operation of the working group is defined in RFC 2418, not RFC 2026.
It allows WGs fairly wide latitude to define process, as long as the principles of openness and technical competence are adhered to.

So the first question is can WG's put more constraints in place for their
internal processes that RFC2026 defines -
Otherwise - I propose that by pure definition - that there can be nothing
arbitrary in any uniform standards process - and so we need the following
changes to RFC2026 at minimum:



    1)    That RFC2026 be modified to specifically define the process of
vetting within a standards group. Specifically how many players are
necessary, how much time, and what they are to accomplish with regard to
the protocols they are attempting to vet. Also what the WG Chairs roles
are in packaging that for the IESG.




as I said, this is RFC 2418, not 2026. The process of protocol "vetting" is 
not a concept mentioned in any IETF process documentation, as far as I 
know; IETF working groups are chartered with specific tasks, not generic 
vetting of protocols.




    2)    That the IESG consider reforming the standards process, so that
there are at minimum, two separate sets of standards or perhaps three (3)
One for production technologies, and one for technologies built as
references or other operational models and maybe one that is a combo of
both. This new stratification of the standards allows Academic and pure
research to continue while the production standards group looks at how
its happening today and plans for tomorrow.




We have this distinction - it is between Experimental/Informational and 
standards track.



                           Harald