Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 26 November 2019 16:37 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7385B121031 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:37:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALV5-n13IjhZ for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AA90121030 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id n23so16399296otr.13 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:37:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0i0LTtU3oAGo62MApInSy6VD8QGoNqaDmZBi5ceK060=; b=L8GOb6Ch+4XHvpyhPEtnzFL++/LwN8rtVws4mzPPVuzdyFKPzTuTd5vqixwGOZqRcx cyzMvQoSOfI9lPTK/xYKBxkJunca8wI0bQTnu8G/ulNsyuDNHLeN9VutHvL9vpJF0AIn xUZ1u1zv4B/EbAQjKRghImUvtQ8ZXu5CZ2c1XbKFYzzUBoiuycEB0H3TcvsN0PhVKrzw dvKGr66sC5itSacFqSFrvGmgKYflV1UTXR7bo3i05dJfSa+BzQPfR/8Vg1xWqqTjVkCn Igki1u2gyKvdjNO+4YFn6CXDphe9xeEBf1B6Xf8Oot2YUDkjZUfCsSX2cU0HVYB915jp Qiow==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUt/5rebFoalwVcngCNgM/sRysAUeVmJVU7gDZVDUOJow808uv+ IzcpEVXa7Ll4byNFU3B8wM13KZqqv/GMdoD7moDczszNCl4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyJ5mM/RUifsFUaeF9iOcYAw831lXOYFL6ZotqyXhURM0KhjwMCJD1DCoiYT2QQArbRcb1cEcKJDOm36FtYspM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4c17:: with SMTP id l23mr24016783otf.112.1574786253794; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:37:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:37:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjjSAK8YLDbnhX9k8jYHz58GazvbGy2Cna=EgZyH=b22A@mail.gmail.com>
To: gendispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004133b40598427f72"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/NJN6ye7bxnBFp9BT0WZ0s2BC2bY>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:37:36 -0000
Thinking the issues through since the meeting, I think this could potentially save a huge amount of time at all levels in the IETF. The question that came to me on the plane back was 'how many documents have to be put through IETF process purely to stop them expiring?' Steve Crocker's original concept for the RFC series was that it would be a kitchen sink of rough thoughts and design sketches capturing as much information as possible. But RFCs started tracking operational details such as port assignments and link info which required editorial consideration. The tensions between these two notions had led to the IEN series being spun out in 1977 as an attempt to separate the streams. Publication of RFC821/2 kind of put paid to the 'design sketch' as a sustainable notion. RFC became a brand. The EIN series was discontinued as Jon did not want to edit two different streams. We can argue about the history if people must. But my main point here is that the Internet has completely changed our concept of publication since. Back in the 1980s, the concept of publication was embedded in a set of cultural values that I and others of my generation understand but are completely alien to the youngsters. They are natives to this land we have created, we are the immigrants. The biggest objection made to ending expiry of IDs was that it might lead to a reduction in draft quality as people might not bother submitting their drafts for processing by IESG etc. Is that really an objection though? Reducing the number of drafts the IESG is required to read could be the ideal outcome if it is the right drafts that are dropped. It is my belief that design considerations have no place in a normative document. They result in confusion and ambiguity. See: 'A well regulated militia'. It is important to capture use cases and requirements but they should not be presented in a normative document. Test vectors are another tricky area. When writing code, the more test vectors I have, the better. But unless the IESG are going to implement the spec and run the test vectors for themselves, they are really not going to be able to review them. I believe that there is a wealth of supporting material that could be captured in the IETF process that really has no need of a document shepherd or IETF review. Of course, there is always the risk that someone might try to pass off an ID as an IETF standard because that is already happening. If this is a concern, we should have a rule that only drafts accepted as AD Sponsored or WG drafts can be listed as 'Standards Track'. But that really doesn't worry me very much because the only standards that matter are the ones people use. There are plenty of IETF standards that have been published as RFCs that have died the death and there are plenty of folk out there on the net who have found that a project has morphed into a de-facto standard that they do not have either the means or the motivation to maintain. Consider what might have happened if one of the early markdown efforts had been written up and published as a permanent Internet draft early on. It might not have prevented the needless proliferation of markdown schemes but it would have allowed those people who wanted to try to avoid divergence to do so. So what some people are presenting as nightmare scenario looks more like a beneficial situation to me. The document author gets to hand off change control. The IETF gets the option to take it up should it choose to do so.
- Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire Keith Moore