Re: Making Decisions in the IETF

Hi Toerless,
At 11:27 PM 30-07-2026, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>Whow, a thread that triggers on one my rantable process opinions.
>Is there no warning about what not to post to the list not to trigger
>these ?
>
>Here we go:
>
>I have seen "addressed" to be too often only more or less
>(dis)satisfactory answers in the WG (mail or in-person) - but no
>change in the work product.

What you described is part of the usual techniques.  If I ask about 
that, someone might point me to a RFC.  The RFC might be a useful 
reference.  However, it does not mean that the someone gave adequate 
thought to addressing the issue at hand.

>I really think it would serve the later usefulness of our documents if
>contentuous aspects are only called "addressed" if the issue is
>reflected in the text of the RFC. In whatever shape or form is fit best
>such as e.g.: worst case add a "Standardization considerations" appendix.

I am on the fence on this one [1].  It ties into what you wrote below.

>These days, it is NOT necessarily the most important aspect of
>adopting an RFC for a product to be interoperable on the wire, but
>often even more so to understand context.

There are two ways to look at this.  Some readers will look for what 
needs to be done and some of them will, in addition, look for a 
rationale.  As for context, writing down the contentious aspects 
could discourage the reader from relying on the RFC for a product.

An RFC is represented as a document which was reviewed by a large 
community.  That is not necessarily accurate for all RFCs produced in 
this Stream.  An RFC might have originated from a small working 
group, received a few reviews within the group, and not much review 
during the Last Call.  At the other end of the spectrum, there are 
contentious discussions when an RFC could help to cash in/not to cash 
[2] in on a (future) product.

>IESG member statement: "Obviously everybody
>interested in why/how the RFC sausage was made should already know this"
>And of course most drafts do not even track such contentuous issue text
>with it because typically the rough consensus party of an argument wants
>to make sure no minority opinion ever gets better documented.

Brian Carpenter mentioned "dissenting arguments" in another venue.  I 
don't remember the exact wording.  I'll look it up if anyone finds it 
useful.  I agree that the dominant side wants to make sure that the 
minority opinion does not make it into the RFC.  Sometimes, the 
minority opinion is described as the vocal minority.

There is the following in RFC 2418 (Page 14):

    "However, unnecessary repeated discussions on issues can be
     avoided if the Chair makes sure that the main arguments in the
     discussion (and the outcome) are summarized and archived after a
     discussion has come to conclusion."

The "please read the mailing list archives" is not a substitute for 
the above when those archives do not contain any summary of the main arguments.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/on-the-fence
2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cash-in