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

Keith Moore <> Sat, 13 March 2021 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9ED3A0DD8 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:43:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=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 9xWXq1k6pY8N for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 131D83A0DD9 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDCA1A92 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:43:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:43:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=1M9NQn 9eDY78XuLP7oTjVU7nqhBdaxIshiA2ZZeU+C4=; b=Czq62SgR9/4iIqoQfmJQGx lQa4ySaKJHu9CMPMX87khDUTTpCZK2aaqnDmk1ugKYK/Qp3pwx4Nd+cnlkXY0u8/ t1qbBnX0vn5LEPjxgX93hDCwVXjVAB5lW/K5NXHAkHZy02+rw7k8/PJdIDlkxZBq Ng17LUSzRMKDi2txommyxyi8BNOIGthKXZZFuiJuwfxC/fPubh3XJGLXt33NbrPP YvmyaZvCYp4H5025IBqph3eqPuiZ8Bn2NGi5lObvqHW5hGyRViSquKR91bemkJlK oNaTP8YmqUX43VJ24IyNX/3IhpE8CuqQthUrXtUCVdqon3wHil6mqz0nTWKPXQ0Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:kwpMYB-OoGbfNgCdFNT88vFNaexE7iOGaAKohwYxfgpWLIee761SjA> <xme:kwpMYFt5liDX4o-_wrPq0TgGSCkLfiVq7Ek7ymgbQqIxMm_hijyVYn37TCsx1Y7cF uqAaKmbI-QaMw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddvfedgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheegueeukeejue ffkeeigfefieeftdfhjeetueegveffvefffeelgffgteehtefgnecuffhomhgrihhnpehr fhgtqdgvughithhorhdrohhrghdpihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejfedruddufedrud eiledriedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhho mhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:kwpMYPDFXdKV_KHtB7kJ1a3uM-B2UpWZoBnpZ4yag19BjPN7-jAD6w> <xmx:kwpMYFdT5q-aWD-bSFdnewAON8foLfq4ecHhF5glG3SxTqwD7i3WLQ> <xmx:kwpMYGNqaVZaWLgD6tAkcLY2nd7ZIQucI9wIe_URouQ5sEprI7z67A> <xmx:lApMYIt8WfZmdOUgSUNE0IbamtQ6Wi0Rb04MNFQmE0Dv7KXtaycWZg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B0B4F1080054 for <>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:42:59 -0500 (EST)
References: <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:42:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E44D259EC74ACA3A18728686"
Content-Language: en-US
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 00:43:04 -0000

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.

(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 

>>   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.