Re: BCP97bis

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 17 October 2021 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1703A0E0D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 14:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5kEhr2Cc71sn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DCF3A0E0A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 14:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a8ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HXXvh48Dtz2xHy; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 23:19:44 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <A117413E-065D-478E-A1CA-3421D5FB0D12@vigilsec.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 23:19:44 +0200
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 656198384.186795-15f70d354fc67ed1911839cc57890b86
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A463E748-3B49-482E-B5E5-03CB3213E673@tzi.org>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.c om> <C657F78F-FF99-4898-8A08-844B32589DDE@vigilsec.com> <CAL0qLwbLqyWSqFGL2x-FpXXD19QG9-eZkrnTVm_fxt3tUfZSgg@mail.gmail.com> <C92D456E-63ED-453B-8F33-3AAECA40D1DA@vigilsec.com> <27721119-D39D-427D-8EEE-C5027DA15B06@akamai.com> <007c01d7c2dc$9090c780$b1b25680$@acm.org> <5385fd6f-b7a7-3baa-1374-f4d8d87216fd@joelhalpern.com> <6454.1634428177@localhost> <6702b78c-037f-f5fd-78a6-901a999dab54@gmail.com> <7E25FC36-0757-45EA-AB12-76F6818C797C@sobco.com> <B6BBF8C8788D1ECEACF549C0@PSB> <D290EE8C-6709-4A08-A827-41F7494D4E58@tzi.org> <A117413E-065D-478E-A1CA-3421D5FB0D12@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2BoDzhFh2HTeL__9GQt2NsJRPbM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 21:19:53 -0000


> On 2021-10-17, at 21:52, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 17, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-10-17, at 14:47, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> FWIW, I have no idea whether permission was obtained to extract
>>> and reproduce material from X3.4-1968 to act as the basis for
>>> RFC 20 or whether the conclusion at the time was that it was not
>>> necessary.  
>> 
>> (Random fuzzy recollection: I seem to remember that what made me start campaigning for RFC 20 to be a STD was that I wanted to stop people from referencing X3.4 just in order to avoid a downref.)
>> 
>> We should do this more often.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been trivial to add RFC 20 to the downref registry?  

To those that know about that concept, yes.
To those that knee-jerk to an idnits throw-away comment, not so sure.

> Of course, there is no need to do it now that it is a standard.
> 
> 0020 ASCII format for network interchange. V.G. Cerf. October 1969.
>     (Format: TXT, PDF, HTML) (Also STD0080) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD)
>     (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0020) 

Indeed, and I think the outcome was a well-deserved advancement.
The only RFC that survived from the 1960s or 1970s in std-index…

             .oOo.

But back to the subject: maybe we need a “behind-the-wall-ref” registry…

E.g., in IoT we sometimes need to exchange data about temperatures.
The quantities and units for that are defined in ISO/IEC 80000, which is paywalled.
(Fortunately, the actual definitions in that tome are in the “Definitions” section, most of which are freely available via “OBP” [e.g., [1]] — but that is just distracting from my point.)
Of course, we can point to secondary sources such as BIPM’s SI brochure [2], but we wouldn’t accept a document referencing TLS via Wikipedia, would we?

So once we have decided we can reference ISO/IEC 80000 with impunity (*), it should be put into a behind-the-wall-ref registry.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) which seems to have happened with RFC 8428 and RFC 8798
[1] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:80000:-3:ed-2:v1:en 
[2] https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9.pdf/fcf090b2-04e6-88cc-1149-c3e029ad8232