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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 13 March 2021 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C3A3A0F0A for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0ka-JT4TYcM for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB623A0F09 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id kk2-20020a17090b4a02b02900c777aa746fso11878883pjb.3 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BNBCZJMewlN3hJIqOsM6oK8PS3CpxV1kQHw/rFX0eJo=; b=ltjzrmshAqleE5gSSESkRCuvBSKIfVzk85+4LSdNqa/nM9h/c8fBP7hw768wARlopN xpvHfV+6iy7RKsbCL0MnOnVj93vfDBO7pLnKKJwMjLSuSFJGQ/y1bhRz57WpYBkhHVdV SWqudZo3aRgmUR02aPSKwDASoBKP5KoUy18wIHPOEbIqb42H/CKynhpC8s/KA6lYoSTE XaH6u3+oXD5zcp81UXtyOXxgLiBZp7adspuOqJmRc+aaFv2o9zAvSXpOGT/oxdZpGb7+ 0Bq750SvBfvr6lt3Byftbu8/sesH4MJ2MQQrjYOincctM2Hf/tVtX6oxcPApvtws0TCy zaGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BNBCZJMewlN3hJIqOsM6oK8PS3CpxV1kQHw/rFX0eJo=; b=KpbOlYPBenZXNmtLNKyAUiRMeURBgRUic7hXOrCQbosGQuEQAJIy6KVJ/m5qeg1AWk rPldpWNJ1o4pNquRN+nh/2j5ACh72uIAu5la7c6WUP658/v6GEaprzI3sDNbUhcfYKD+ nSDKMpxEqrGDjqUYrr4dj20tqk4+BCDD11rw900I0bEqCl5q1TqszattJBACu5akeXpD kjcGJYJtfJyGz6xOMdLZTRGHL0y9GZuOT4tXIsW5RnV/2osyKnXnTDtRrtq1YV3jXPYj UR+BSvmai5rpr+QVrep3Ex5MEVyLTK1wedJ6XoguTiqG/SPa18n2Lt8Y6E1sianGaJZH 3spw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QM44YoEJkBwBKrN4LsUDpOyxbWhV8OHXeU91+B8iMkQt3jClo Or2yTRmsH4ot9xSLiPmHj1ERDR0bm9E09Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzikKAkO+u9n6rnnsMRlbkH666hIu4Li3XsgVcZ/FK/QVqEBFT7Wt3/0Fi2AVBaA52gxncUhg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5284:: with SMTP id w4mr998702pjh.29.1615597756121; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id x11sm12657806pjh.0.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:09:15 -0800 (PST)
To: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 14:09:11 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 01:09:19 -0000

On 13-Mar-21 13:42, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 3/12/21 3:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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.
> Given the long history and very widespread practice of mirroring RFCs to numerous sites, and having seen many times how useful this can be, I really doubt it's a good idea to start discouraging this practice, even by the site.

I agree that lots of mirrors of the canonical versions is a Good Thing. Now that the RFC Editor is showing the htmlized version for older RFCs, as well as the modern html versions, I think we should encourage all mirrors to carry them too. But what the draft seems to suggest is a *partial* mirror. That's a Bad Idea IMHO.
> (now if wants to mirror RFCs at and issue redirects to the latter domain, that probably wouldn't bother me)
> Relying entirely on a single site makes things more fragile, and RFCs should IMO be widely replicated in order to limit the potential for access to them to be restricted either accidentally or deliberately.   (It's not  as if RFCs never say things that are inconvenient to powerful parties.)
>>>  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?
> Maybe we don't need to solve that problem.   IMO even I-Ds that have been adopted by a working group are still not blessed by IETF and shouldn't be given any elevated status in the minds of the general public until they've been published in final form.

Well, that's a bit vague in the draft. If it was more precisely defined, we could discuss it further.

> Keith