Subject: Re: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charetr

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:40:44 -0500 (EST)

> maybe we need to fix that.  it seem perverse to give more scrutiny to
> WG documents than to individual submissions that have the same status.

WG documents are IETF documents under the rules and procedures of the IETF
individual submissions directly to the RFC Editor are not IETF documents

Jon (Postel) was willing to have the IESG check to be sure that an
individual submission was not an end-run around a WG but felt strongly
that the RFC Editor process was a needed (for the Internet) function

Scott
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:47:14 -0500

> > maybe we need to fix that.  it seem perverse to give more scrutiny
> > to WG documents than to individual submissions that have the same
> > status.
> 
> WG documents are IETF documents under the rules and procedures of the
> IETF individual submissions directly to the RFC Editor are not IETF
> documents
> 

I understand the history, but RFCs have come a long way from what they
used to be.  

It's clear that we need informational and experimental documents (or
something similar) and it's clear that we sometimes need to be able to
accept informational, experimental, and occasionally even standards
documents that were developed outside of working groups.

What's not clear is that we need to be liberal in what we accept for
publication from individuals while we are being conservative in what 
we accept for publication from working groups.  
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:57:38 -0500

> documents that were developed outside of working groups.

   I trust that _discussion_ of the process for "standards" documents
developed outside of working groups is on-topic under the proposed
charter?

> we accept for publication from working groups.  

   I would rather say that the path bypassing working groups does not
need to be more liberal in what it accepts -- merely independent.

   Certainly it is (IMHO) appropriate to be conservative in what the
full WG+IESG process approves. (I believe our main problem for
discussion is the length of time it takes, not whether it is too
"conservative".)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:10:36 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Leslie" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charetr

> developed outside of working groups is on-topic under the proposed

I had assumed that if we were newTRK, we would be interested in
standards-track specifiications, whether developed by a working group
or not. If we are interested in both standards-track and
non-standards-track specifications (whether developed by a working
group or not), aren't we more like newDOC?

I don't mind being newDOC, but it's worth pinging the group for
concensus on which we are, while we're still baking the charter.

Spencer

(and, of course, the name of the working group is not tightly coupled
to this decision)

.