Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Mon, 15 March 2021 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E173A1278 for <>; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.122
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1WNKsS6QHTT for <>; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A79273A1251 for <>; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DzNJX4G8Rz6G9tG; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1615781468; bh=fzE+BCT9WTUjSkhXWmEGaQpcMXcKxxSpoBIPTpF9p0s=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nIdIwH+2v7fzGTQrJy54yJxGPO4FPNKMUuyst/yptec4dA5j9qs/fOnXMLHjnfyFh 03Xq0WnMNZkvVQxtEPPAuJ1qx5yUkZVfYq7ZPrlT/UCvRAHSLk1mPV7eK5fXLyqj6D ikjSfpJM9p2Fc0LC0gv9Y7umQK1sYkHAcJ/p2iyw=
X-Quarantine-ID: <HIPr-bpT-Il7>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DzNJX0blrz6G9rV; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 21:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 00:11:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 04:11:10 -0000

Mark, I think the whole game with domains is a mistake.
As others have said, the content (drafts, RFCs, ...) is mirrored in 
multiple places.  And we want people to do that.

Also, when it comes to drafts, it is actually important that individual 
drafts aimed at a working group be known to and easily visible by the 
working group.  So if folks are using things like the datatracker WG 
summary page, the drafts need to be there.  At which point putting them 
in a different domain is completely worthelss.

I don't object to putting logos on  different stream RFCs.  I don't know 
that it will help much.

Note that none of your changes would seem to help much with the most 
common consufion, namely informational or experimental IETF RFCs being 
treated as Standards Track RFCs by external promoters.  And no, I do not 
think the right answer is to remove Informational or Experimental RFCs.

And we already see folks (maybe deliberately, maybe accidentally) 
confusing individual or WG Internet Drafts with RFCs.  Even though any 
form of reference is completely different.

I don't see most of this document as usefully improving much of any of 
the many problems I have seen.


PS: At least in my experience, folks don't generally conflate or 
misrepresent either IRTF or Independent Stream documents with IETF 
product.  Maybe if we could figure out why not, we could get more 
leverage for actually solving the problem.

PPS: My recommendation would be to not dispatch this document.

On 3/14/2021 11:58 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>> On 13 Mar 2021, at 7:53 am, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> As already  noted, this can't really be an IETF document since it purports to cover all streams.
> Some parts will need to be initiated by other streams, but they stream managers can effectively opt into its suggestions. Also, much of it is about what it *not* associated with the IETF -- which we do control.
>>> 2.1.3. Proposal 3: domain usage
>> I think this section is actively harmful. The canonical place for all RFCs is; I think that we should very likely deprecate copies in any other domains (although those domains should certainly have pointers to the canonical copies).
>> Really, RFCs have no place in the IETF data tracker, except as pointers.
> If we can cure ourselves of the addition to the augmented views on tools and datatracker, I'm all for this. What we really need to encourage is augmentation of the RFC Editor view (perhaps on the metadata page, etc.).
>>> 2.2. Internet-Drafts
>>> The following recommendations apply to the publication of Internet-Drafts.
>> The problem here is that draft-foo-bar has no intrinsic link to any of the streams. A differentiation can only be made later, if the draft becomes draft-ietf-bar or draft-irtf-bar. So how would we algorithmically classify draft-nottingham-quic-new-idea or draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from?
> As unassociated drafts on; they're not adopted on any stream.
> Cheers,
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>> On 12-Mar-21 14:44, wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>         Title           : Clarifying IETF Document Status
>>>         Author          : Mark Nottingham
>>> 	Filename        : draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 7
>>> 	Date            : 2021-03-11
>>> Abstract:
>>>    There is widespread confusion about the status of Internet-Drafts and
>>>    RFCs, especially regarding their association with the IETF and other
>>>    streams.  This document recommends several interventions to more
>>>    closely align reader perceptions with actual document status.
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>> Internet-Draft directories:
>>> or
>> -- 
>> Gendispatch mailing list
> --
> Mark Nottingham