Technical Summary
This document describes a new document series (IONs) intended for use
as a repository for IETF operations documents, which should be more
ephemeral than RFCs, but more referenceable than internet-drafts, and
with more clear handling procedures than a random Web page.
It proposes to establish this series as an RFC 3933 process
experiment.
Working Group Summary
During IETF Last Call, concern was expressed that ION documents
must not be used to change matters of IETF process that require
IETF consensus. This experiment doesn't change the IESG's
authority, but it creates a systematic way to document procedural
decisions. Text was added to clarify that IONs cannot
override BCPs. The disposition of ION documents if the
experiment is deemed a failure was clarified, as were other
points questioned during Last Call. Finally, the IESG needs
to affirm its support for the experiment.
Protocol Quality
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter
Note to RFC Editor
Please update as follows:
OLD
Old versions MAY be published in the draft store, but there's no
requirement that they remain available indefinitely. Experience will
show what the best policy for draft retention is.
NEW
Old versions may be published in the draft store, and must be kept
in a version management system, for the duration of the experiment.
Experience will show what the best policy for draft retention is
if the series is made permanent.
OLD
If someone wishes to do such a split while the experiment is running,
the BCPs cannot refer to the "procedures" documents as IONs, since
the concept of an ION may go away.
NEW
If someone wishes to do such a split while the experiment is running,
the BCPs cannot refer to the "procedures" documents as IONs, since
the concept of an ION may go away. In that case, any procedures
removed from a BCP must either be reinstated or otherwise stored as
a permanently available reference.
OLD
o Web pages, which can be changed without notice, provide very
little ability to track changes, and have no formal standing -
confusion is often seen about who has the right to update them,
what the process for updating them is, and so on. It is hard when
looking at a web page to see whether this is a current procedure,
a procedure introduced and abandoned, or a draft of a future
procedure.
NEW
o Web pages, which can be changed without notice, provide very
little ability to track changes, and have no formal standing -
confusion is often seen about who has the right to update them,
what the process for updating them is, and so on. It is hard when
looking at a web page to see whether this is a current procedure,
a procedure introduced and abandoned, or a draft of a future
procedure. For certain procedures, their informal documentation
in the "IESG Guide" wiki has partially clarified this situation
but has no official status.