Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632873A689B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.774
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xl7m2TktQCow for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E337A3A688F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAK7Zh0ytJV2c/2dsb2JhbAChK3GkOZtThT0EhEI4hSWCew
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,336,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="157196310"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2010 01:49:32 +0000
Received: from 74.157.camp.wide.ad.jp (tky-vpn-client-230-165.cisco.com [10.70.230.165]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o891nN42030019; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 01:49:26 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by 74.157.camp.wide.ad.jp (PGP Universal service); Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:49:31 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by 74.157.camp.wide.ad.jp on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:49:31 +0900
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:49:16 +0900
Message-Id: <97C9AEF7-98A7-4EDF-9BDA-895847FEFB19@cisco.com>
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C817C6F.8070303@gmail.com> <4C818963.4090106@bennett.com> <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:49:11 -0000

Please, no. 

The RFC Series is not a collection of standards. It is community memory, and in it we have white papers that have been seminal such as RFC 970, problem statements, requirements documents, and analyses of a wide variety, all of which are informational. 

Let me give you two specific examples:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt
2804 IETF Policy on Wiretapping. IAB, IESG. May 2000. (Format:
     TXT=18934 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3924.txt
3924 Cisco Architecture for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks. F. Baker,
     B. Foster, C. Sharp. October 2004. (Format: TXT=40826 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)

The former gives a view on the topic of lawful interception, and requests that anyone that develops an interception technology publish it so that it can be reviewed openly within the community. The latter does exactly that.

The collected experience in the RFC series is at least as valuable as the protocol descriptions in it.

On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's?  Pre-WWW, having publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was certainly useful.  However, in today's environment of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues, why would we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?
> 
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> 
>> With respect, Brian, I don't think this is simply the failure of journalists to discern the distinction between Informational RFCs and Standards Track RFCs. Nobody has made the claim that the IETF produced a standard for accounting and billing for QoS or anything else. Informational RFCs are a perfectly fine record of what certain people in the IETF community may be "envisioning" at a given time, as long as people understand that "envisioning" is not the same as "requiring," which is basic English literacy.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf