Re: BCP97bis

Warren Kumari <> Mon, 18 October 2021 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A313A170A for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 AHnRx0pFqtKu for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5252E3A16F4 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j8so1028146uak.9 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+xLFfMnMzUAYAbgvk5XNax+tIHBStGrkKBGyMmoYNzY=; b=EVf44Rv34+8HPIT5GKYyZIOGV9pnUcBMvqEh6mU/qp2zefULVkMOgArJOY+ikTFFUR OpAI0ilxr6d+KRtjiiCQ1wtX5RANqFiHN/bc1hm4kTuzExjUGaBonP1xL8le+Vjsr2Qi b5YQG7CpdZCFqc0KnqbySxwTmIT4L1kCu3nkfIWX+kl9pCH76kB0yeS7RXJ+wwbf+b/X uDPyJiae45WxwJF0ZQJ22hrfnucHWagRT2mMgcMmwUV7Jh2r0Xa+AsDw2V7PyhJfoI8L LgLpanNQg9mEuH8DytonbTXNZXSf7v7StNdPoqydmvZvafoL8qlWaa9l9nl/TNHkTbVk SyMQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+xLFfMnMzUAYAbgvk5XNax+tIHBStGrkKBGyMmoYNzY=; b=T59ARnZNuJgcGU0KFqrOFq+FD0U1CNvdjSL2HRTYJDKJ60DEhYbbmvZXuY1uLe9d22 Iv1Hq2PUSYGkO+ThuFcEJTpFCivVH+5Ytb2fI7HR1FLA7M9EP3m7BJB/CLHIzdmoW6Kr lAmdIIsToch1H31mQm1OUZwY5LkU6k8udHJBGW3HzruBKJ/8I3fnzDq/gq7fRdnVuD2M GeTC5A29895tn5g1/n+qvAznft225Lj4gd2j9fPrKRmldJxQXJntTh2GRMSEHYEnO3YQ OQNVWQRPwmO2/ym9UAGPL1xoIDSpY7T/+tZ/qNabmPFj2a6o2cqepLvShsKgwBsVn15w QA5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530RhNILJ2xmiLFa+Mvk1oM3fxtKu9f2px2Nq3PIOE8M/mTTYH5P s6tz7NCpc9MgkWulKUjxSfmtEFEJXc7lyTCkZENimPjZO2JLEoDX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznhOEH6XnNpgAbkS08LPW+nIlK4yZXQt0mMCfAPIQu7uRt+BYHKSxIw1hHOLdG6bNzZbmEwHpPXBQtNQHsHv4=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:23e2:: with SMTP id 89mr27094501uao.44.1634578835702; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:39:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <>, Carsten Bormann <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc19be05cea40a43"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:40:42 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:41 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:36 AM Salz, Rich <> wrote:
>>    - The IESG has had multiple cases during my time there where we
>>    haven't had access to some normative reference, and so we can't do our
>>    job.  This has added long delays to document processing.  That's what we're
>>    trying to address here.
>> I believe it is far more common for the IESG to review and progress
>> documents without having all normative references tracked down and read.
> The role doesn't matter, does it?  As an Area Review Team member or even a
> Working Group participant faced with a document with normative references
> behind a paywall, you face the same problem.

Yes. No. Maybe.

There are some protocols where the only people
implementing/interoperating/whatever are all part of a small group that
already knows and understands the <whatever is in the paywalled document>,
and / or are willing to shell out the money to pay for it.

A recent example of this is -- there are likely to
only be a very small number of people who will implement the tranport part,
and they already understand the "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol version
1.3" and / or would be willing to purchase it.

Yes, in an ideal world, this would be an open, free, etc document -- but,
absent an ideal world, I still think that it's better that how IPv6 is
transmitted over NFC using 6LoWPAN is documented in an RFC than having an
undocumented protocol....


> Sure, you could make some assumptions that what's in the normative
> reference is correct, or sane, or trustworthy, or whatever.  What if you're
> wrong?  What if you want to be certain?
> Shouldn't our processes err on the side of pushing for quality?
> -MSK

The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra