Re: BCP97bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 18 October 2021 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216BF3A13BB for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id srbKHH1-nywG for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FFE93A1670 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r17so2754414uaf.8 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7+AD7vnGTtowm5lVeYHZYw6gR0AAJFgWULBiVuHzW88=; b=QZTPLHIPR2yMm5P/8ocsMLSfL4LQQ3yt0gJGTODdYSVaMqu1Pk0Qbe+3Jv8CHqv9Vo qO6N8wJoArUKznIvJs1JyI2qMVkB5CzuLBU+dSecegpawTN3nRoENGolPum+GV3eSRVX rtCEo1Gqd/iWaC3l2ylMlUQcKARD6Y/Z5qWodtlg1QBfaep0M8a0A2FOySMMK+OL5r1t 9rmlPLxXsOB4kD+Z4zJbfuCVCU9FTUR8OHmWMRm2RHGnAkzWCKVU3TymVF4G+JyPt9WH OWzpOQZ2Vi6dUPE62Jf3eSIfw0h5Hva0uvs/gReBduQGKw0PjI8BjFUsZX+JTeMorSkZ d6pw==
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=7+AD7vnGTtowm5lVeYHZYw6gR0AAJFgWULBiVuHzW88=; b=qOWaeZ6EZhWnkISnb0I6E4BqQbA5Q+T4DjSe6Ngsuoba35ExXFEq4JYDjvzZ+ftIGN 2OJWtrF959aJmwoO0Wqqfo3bnKYqrmafM/gTRZaAmarbMeadOEH4LLC/8O3TqvqyVzEE d/EOkR6SPFYPpgpVwZAck/eelXNBMwEUusjMk8v2Kt6PuCW/xkVSZMGj9do4s9Gvk7tJ RGMHAAPTBGXnxPdGDoPm0MKFj22wvZBgZTiLXUSYxnN7v9xvJ8UJMuNbgSe2gkivXmPc 0bNSKgfAJBxFWCtXpUdjNcNg473E+MSbUE0szooVnFj5VskFyvhKzgDpVsC3cknfsDMM hzZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531w53WgHAtH+lBJwUBt9HUhF/8wx+Zm1xbtR979EfIeioMI1Kxc WygPoV43CMUbuKMPsN5x7KBeZqmnxY7q0WLV2dZKaEHOMSw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDtrqmX2Vm6UWkaOkCzuPpryzocE7k2twWLvxcqAiskSdBrtW6q0LTxOv6c5S1PcBem43C9lPoMN3cHfhqkPg=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c088:: with SMTP id x8mr28205948vsi.45.1634577484150; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <2284_1634569064_616D8B68_2284_224_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303542DECC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <2284_1634569064_616D8B68_2284_224_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303542DECC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:17:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004cfb1e05cea3ba33"
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 17:18:11 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:57 AM <> wrote:

> I agree with the concern raised below.
> It is likely that securing access would be to pay the fees for every
> access. I’m not sure this can be fixed by write-up unless we have in mind
> something similar to the approach considered in my write-up at:

In the cases I remember, it's been possible to get free access to the
target document on request when the other SDO is made aware that we're
developing a standard that refers to it.  The authors/editors in those
cases have requested it and received a free copy with the understanding
that it won't be distributed other than to satisfy our reviews.

What you've done here would also be satisfactory (and for this IESG, it

Personally I think swinging the other way is just as bad: The target
document might be the product of an SDO that we consider to be eminently
stable, but how do we know the document we're about to produce is correct
if we can't read the target?  Are reviewers just expected to take it for