Hi Ben,
At 01:46 PM 25-03-2025, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
As a categorical statement your assertion about MIB and YANG modules is
surely false. [1] Even as a merely general statement I suspect it remains
false, since I think I remember ADs other than myself finding internal
inconsistencies in such modules during my time on the IESG.
I read the following message which you sent over five years ago:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s5z_83BQau4bDiXn5xhhakxyvYg/
I also read a few other messages which you sent to this mailing
list. In my opinion, you gave some thought to the work. That is good enough.
But I am inclined to agree with you that it's a red herring and the
change in expectations that arise from the surrounding societal context are
a bigger factor. And that is not necessarily bad; if you go and look at
RFCs from the 1980s and 1990s they just simply would not meet the bar for
publication given the current expectations for document quality and
completeness, which in general result from hard-earned experience about
what is needed in a specification to ensure interoperability, correctness,
security, and reliability.
I could not find much to disagree with in the above paragraph.
Adrian [1] sent the following comment:
"And (slight switch of direction) while the IESG is responsible for writing
a job description that is both detailed and vague, and while the NomCom
uses that description as the main input for recruitment/selection. All
we do is perpetuate."
The Nomination Committee's rules do not say that the Committee is
expected to rubber-stamp whatever the IESG sends to them. It is
probably less work for the Committee to take whatever the IESG sends
to them and go through the usual motions.
Adrian ended his message by enquiring about what to do. I would look
into the job description to see whether it matches what the community
is seeing.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9DLaIGf4hB9R6U0uvWcp-df3O1M
