[00:00:02] <jhutz> for example, we won't insist they have security consdierations
[00:00:30] <jhutz> secondary marker will be text added by IESG, something like document is not an IETF document, was not reviewd for IETF publication, etc
[00:00:32] <smb> that will become the RFC editor's policy -- and the RFC editor has insisted on security considerations.
[00:00:41] <hartmans> So I am not sure this is the right idea, but have people carefully considered just requiring all individual submissions to go through the IETF?
[00:00:47] <jhutz> ... document not an ietf document, though it was once considered by an ietf wg.
[00:01:00] <hta> wait for allison's next slide......
[00:01:01] <jhutz> suggested language for charter for "primary marker"....
[00:01:06] <sob> but the RFC Ed has insisted on Security Considerations sections - that would not be up to the IESG to change
[00:01:28] <shep> hartmans: what do you mean "go through the IETF"?
[00:01:31] <jhutz> - development of a primary marker, such as a series label or sub-label, such that documents not originating from the ietf are clearly distinguished from those that do
[00:01:42] <leslie> sob -- I think the point is that the IESG could not require it of the RFC-Editor.
[00:02:00] <leslie> (or anything else the IESG decides to do to IETF documents)
[00:02:02] <jhutz> sob: the iesg would not insist; whether to require sec cons would be entirely up to rfc-editor
[00:02:06] <hartmans> shep - please use dash for vocative. I mean be sponsored by an AD as an individual submission.
[00:02:27] <sob> ? sob: the iesg would not insist; whether to require sec cons would be entirely up to rfc-editor - ok that makes sense
[00:02:48] --- Ralph has left: Disconnected
[00:03:03] <jhutz> .... secondary markers limited. implementors love headers, state diagrams; no one reads front matter.
[00:03:14] <jhutz> ... rfc's go by number; no attention is paid to status
[00:03:23] <jhutz> - a primary marker is an rfc label
[00:03:30] <jhutz> - a new series structire will be proposed.
[00:03:39] <jhutz> something like - Non-IETF series - Independent
[00:04:14] <jhutz> charles perkins: I thought the problem with changing the series label was that RFC-edtior didn't like it
[00:04:41] <jhutz> hta: the point of this discussion is to figure out what the ietf wants. we've talked to the rfc-editor folks that are here; they have not run screaming in terror so far
[00:04:42] <shep> hartmans - OK. I thought individual submissions already went through the same review process within the IESG.
[00:05:08] <jhutz> ... I don't think the rfc-editor will be the biggest problem once we figure out what we wnat to do
[00:05:22] <jhutz> allison: once we have concensus and an idea what we want from a process pov, we're in a better position
[00:05:52] --- JoelMHalpern has left
[00:06:06] <jhutz> bob hinden: 2 comments: (1) I think you're going the direction of wanting to put a label on non ietf-stuff. maybe we should instead put a label on things that _are_ from the ietf. maybe big ascii art. but a positive label, not the other way around.
[00:06:46] <jhutz> ... (2) please take this constructively.... I was struck when you talked about the new IESG review process, how close it is to what some people would like for the standards track (light IESG review; no sec cons requirements, etc)
[00:06:51] <jhutz> allison: no sec cons is not so likely to happen
[00:07:10] <jhutz> shep - individual submissions _within the IETF_ do, but they can also go directly to rfc-editor
[00:07:55] --- leslie has left
[00:07:56] <jhutz> [who?] As both of you and lots of people in room know, the concern over understanding what is an IETF doc and what's not is something that comes up every couple of years for the last 14. There's always concern about people abusing this behavour. We can't fix everyone.
[00:08:05] <hta> who = Dave Crocker.
[00:08:28] --- admcd has left
[00:08:31] <jhutz> ... We've not been able to document that this behaviour is breaking things; we just don't like it.
[00:08:35] <jhutz> - (2) we're low on money
[00:08:52] --- mattz has left
[00:08:53] <jhutz> - (3) we have serious crises in getting work done in a timely fashion; how will this fix any of that
[00:09:24] <jhutz> [x] Something like 101 informationla rfc's published in the last year; 116 standards track; lost of effort going into reviewing non-standards-track documents.
[00:09:37] <avri> won't have time to get to the mike. but what about irtf drafts. they have alwasy been the poor cousins but ...
[00:09:40] <jhutz> [x] If we do something like this, what do we do to already-published RFC's?
[00:09:46] <jhutz> smb: we grandfather them; RFC's are immutable
[00:09:57] <hta> note in room - lots of the 101 infos are from the IETF. Perhaps 20-30 are non-IETF.
[00:10:23] <sob> IRTF IDs get reviewed by the IESG in basically the same was as independent RFC editor submissions
[00:10:48] <jhutz> Sam Hartman: As far as I understand, I always have the option with an individual submission of finding an AD to sponsor it as an individual submission. Do we still need individual submissions outside the IETF process (direct to rfc-editor)? Let's be sure we do before spending lots of time fixing it.
[00:11:09] --- kenh has left
[00:11:11] <avri> i know - that is what i meant about poor cousins, i am wondering how this proposal will affect that.
[00:11:49] <sob> > i am wondering how this proposal will affect that. - put a "IRTF" label in place of the "IETF" label?
[00:11:57] <jhutz> [y] what's changed is that we were providing a useful service publishing easily accessible documents that were not available other ways. The service of accepting publications via rfc-editor from outside the IETF is solving a problem that's not there any more.
[00:12:56] <jhutz> [z]: we've got another problem here - we've got a fairly sloppy standards process, which serves the community well. One of the things that protects us in a concensus envrionment is the ability to publish dissenting opinions in public view
[00:13:10] <hartmans> I certainly agree with Jon. If we drop the ability to have non-IETF individual submissions then I'd hope ADs would accept descents.
[00:13:15] <hta> z = John Klensin
[00:13:28] <jhutz> smb: no intention to disenfranchise that; see my porposal to the iesg on publishing alternate things reviewed by wg
[00:13:32] <hta> y = Larry Masinter
[00:14:01] --- avri has left: Disconnected
[00:14:01] <jhutz> [totally missed that speaker]
[00:14:07] --- hartmans has left
[00:14:08] --- Ted Faber has left
[00:14:17] <jhutz> [hta - thanks; things were moving too fast to look up, and I don't recognize everyone by voice]
[00:14:18] <hta> elliot lear, but I don't remember what he said.
[00:14:25] <hta> old friends :-)
[00:15:20] --- smb has left: Logged out
[00:15:39] <sob> session over?
[00:15:59] <shep> Yep, session has been adjourned.
[00:15:59] --- Melinda has left
[00:16:10] <sob> tnx for the notes!
[00:16:13] <sob> g-night
[00:16:38] --- shep has left
[00:16:44] --- sob has left
[00:18:30] --- jlcjohn has left: Disconnected
[00:19:47] --- jhutz has left
[00:21:06] --- falk has left: Disconnected
[00:23:55] --- klensin-ietf has left
[00:26:31] --- Bob.Hinden has left
[00:28:21] --- hta has left: Disconnected
[00:33:55] --- jm has left: Disconnected
[00:38:20] --- dcrocker has left: Disconnected
[00:38:51] --- ludomp has left
[00:38:57] --- avri has joined
[00:42:05] --- tonyhansen has left
[00:42:28] --- hta has joined
[00:56:22] --- falk has joined
[00:57:40] --- falk has left
[00:57:43] --- warlord has left
[00:58:28] --- avri has left
[01:04:26] --- mankin has joined
[01:25:00] --- randy_g has joined
[01:39:34] --- hta has left
[01:48:05] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[01:48:45] --- mankin has left: Disconnected
[01:54:58] --- randy_g has joined
[02:02:16] --- Loughney has joined
[02:04:05] --- Loughney has left
[02:46:29] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[05:44:03] --- chopps has left
[09:56:43] --- michael has left
[15:41:10] --- randy_g has joined
[17:51:24] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[17:59:36] --- randy_g has joined
[20:34:55] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[20:44:02] --- randy_g has joined
[20:46:49] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected