Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

Hey Sam,

On 15 Dec 2014, at 11:05 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> On 12/08/2014 05:29 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Larry, are you saying you want to get this approved as Informational, or that plus IETF Consensus?
> 
> I've taken the liberty of adapting Larry's blog post to RFC format.  In the process, I've lightly updated and added to it.  Still, the bulk of the content remains Larry's, so the bulk of the credit goes to him.  As to any errors I've introduced in the process (which is quite likely as I'm not familiar with the template or relevant practices), the blame goes to me.
> 
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.txt
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.xml
> 
> For those inclined to do so, feel free to send pull requests or create issues on the following:
> 
> https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/url-problem-statement.xml
> 
> Comments via email are also fine.
> 
> As to Mark's question, I'm inclined to ask for "plus IETF Consensus". That being said, I've been unable to find what this precisely entails. If asking for this means that it might get pushback, I'm fine with that; the one thing I would not be fine with is it stalling.

It entails either:
 a) getting an AD to agree to sponsor it, and then getting passed by the IESG, or 
 b) getting a WG to adopt it, gain consensus, and send it to the IESG to pass.

Details linked from:
  http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html

AD sponsorship tends to happen much less than it used to, especially for contentious documents; it a topic is likely to need discussion and judgement of consensus, my understanding is that ADs prefer to leave that to a WG. I'm not sure how this will apply here; on the one hand, UR[IL] is a *very* contentious topic; on the other hand, this document doesn't seem to be saying much, from a technical standpoint. 

A WG implies that the IETF decides to start one, which *normally* means a BoF first. Next opportunity for that is in Dallas <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates-2015.html#ietf92>.

I suspect the fastest you'd see an RFC here would be something like March, more likely April or May -- and that's if and AD sponsors it and everyone's rowing together, etc. (i.e., those are funny dates; this could take much longer).

Back to that "this doesn't seem to be saying much, from a technical standpoint" -- as I said earlier, the proper "official" channel for questions, statement of intent, etc. is a Liaison Statement:
  http://www.ietf.org/liaison/

This is a much lighter-weight (and more applicable) mechanism between the organisations, if you want to get something like this "on the record." As it is, I don't understand what this I-D is actually intended to do. Perhaps it'd be useful to talk to Philippe and Wendy about this, and to have a liaison call soon-ish.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 01:41:10 UTC