Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt)

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Fri, 22 October 2021 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
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 1D70D3A0BC8; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 6gHDh-uGged7; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53EA03A0BBB; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1me1ra-000CrC-C6; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:14:06 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:13:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
cc: draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt)
Message-ID: <DE740A8852DD07F5D15015CC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <163493224563.32534.14910053039218445700@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <163493224563.32534.14910053039218445700@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/60gahn-Ko3GwefQAER53B5kw_h0>
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: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:14:20 -0000

IESG,

My apologies for not noticing this until now -- I was
concentrating on the content of the document, which seemed fine,
so failed to notice.

So a quick question: What is the justification for classifying
this as a Proposed Standard?    The I-D does not change the FTP
specification or the underlying technical content of any other
document.  Nothing in it appears to be either a Technical
Specification or an Applicability Statement as defined in RFC
2026.  It is strictly about IETF procedures and updating
references.

As a thought experiment to help illustrate the question,
consider how this document would meet the criteria for
advancement to Internet Standard, something that ought, in
principle, be possible for any Proposed Standard.

As a specification about how the IETF does business and where it
keeps documents, it would seem appropriate as a BCP.  The one
strong argument I can see for making it a Proposed Standard is
that only actual standards track documents should be able to
update other standards track documents.  But, when I (and
others) have raised that issue in the past, we have been told
that there was ample precedent for the use of BCPs to update
even the technical contact of standards track documents.  

At least according to what I see in the datatracker, this
question did not come up during the IESG review either.

So, again apologizing for just noticing this and the lateness of
the comment, I think an explanation is in order and/or perhaps a
pre-publication change to BCP.

I hope this can be resolved informally and efficiently but, if
that is not possible, please treat this note as an appeal of the
decision to approve this document with that status.

    john



--On Friday, October 22, 2021 12:50 -0700 The IESG
<iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service'
>   (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt) as Proposed
> Standard
> 
> This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the
> product of an IETF Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact person is Éric Vyncke.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-poi
> nters/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
>    The IETF FTP service running at ftp.ietf.org, ops.ietf.org
> and    ietf.org will be retired.  A number of published RFCs
> in the IETF and    IAB streams include URIs that reference
> this FTP service.  To ensure    that the materials referenced
> using the IETF FTP service can still be    found, this
> document updates the FTP-based references in these    affected
> documents with HTTPS URIs.
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
>    This is an AD sponsored document.  It was discussed with
> the IESG and went through the IETF Last Call procedure with
> some comments, which should be addressed by the author before
> the actual ballot.
> 
> Document Quality
> 
>    Multiple reviews have been done and the tools team agrees
> with the content.
> 
> Personnel
> 
>    Éric Vyncke is the responsible AD.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce