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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Mon, 15 March 2021 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9D83A1208 for <>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bpfi9XFdUswR for <>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:48:48 -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 1E5D43A121B for <>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Dzd7401NQz6G9QK; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1615816128; bh=YXiRNKzztGgH2o6ocyWUT+9a15jXu6s8488+7SFhoPk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cGNw+behaupbDmz0/aD3taPKraJqmW/g4DKiDoRivlHbE6ycMVwswu9kevUsF5Xld 8L8SFvFajV18swk0ppRNUAAJBU48vuI7xvwQZyqqxO8A0u7oLY9tZINCNu314kNEer dx1SYJ7nC0aNM65QTlEWt35kmjBsRQjhlSwO+02Y=
X-Quarantine-ID: <IXAtz7O8h7UI>
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 4Dzd732Nj2z6G7wM; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>,
References: <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:48:45 -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 13:48:49 -0000

I am happy to discuss (somewhere?  by direct email?  on the IETF list? 
It is not the role of Gendispatch even if we are abusing it that way.) 
ideas for effective ways to keep internet drafts effective while better 
differentiating them.  I have no good ideas to offer, sorry.


On 3/15/2021 9:27 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Gendisp, etc,
> 	Three comments inline marked [RWG].
> Regards,
> Rod
 >> Joel Halpern wrote
>> 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.
> [RWG] I have actually seen a rather large open source project propose
> adopting an Individual Draft as a policy as if the IETF had
> published that work as an RFC.  This is a dangeriously bad state
> of affairs and is worth spending some time thinking about how
> the IETF can minimize such mistakes.
> [RWG]  Would it be worth creating a better document, or is this
> a solution in need of a problem?