Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 22:15 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3B31A1ACC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:15:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 vQGRE9-Yp_o3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:15:33 -0800 (PST)
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 862851A1AC8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:15:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1XxNdU-0004Kn-Da; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:15:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:15:27 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
Message-ID: <935E87BD05D6090238E6FD68@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB4PR06MB45707BD36E5FE5154EC0021AD660@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan> <54833B14.7010104@cs.tcd.ie> ,<D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DB4PR06MB45707BD36E5FE5154EC0021AD660@DB4PR06MB457.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/McgKExq2SS8lRInYRNXXexRa4g4
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:15:35 -0000
--On Saturday, December 06, 2014 21:13 +0000 l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > If RFC20 is made a full standard, then references to it must > be to a particular paper copy (not necessarily the > 'original'), since there's a chicken-and-egg problem in > needing to have a working implementation of RFC20 just to > decode and read electronic transcriptions of RFC20. Lloyd, if you want to turn this into an exercise in how pedantic it is possible to get, I'm pretty sure we will all lose. However, and perhaps ironically, the very early RFCs were published and circulated on paper and the normative copies were paper copies. You could derive strong hints about this from reading RFC 10 which (with RFC 16) specifies the distribution list around the time RFC 20 was written and, notable, gives postal mail addresses and not network ones. That is unsurprising since FTP, much less FTP with anonymous/guest and mail accounts, didn't come along until over a year later. If you were to look at the early RFCs, you would find notes on many of them indicating that they were typed back in or otherwise reconstructed into machine-readable ASCII page image form some years later. Some even contain warnings that the renditions might not be completely accurate. In particular, if you look at the current online version of RFC 20, you will find a note that reads: "[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry] [ into the online RFC archives by Robbie Bennet 9/99]" As has already been noted, Robbie made an error in constructing the document footers (I'd have to dig out my copy of the original (see below) to even figure out of it had footers -- many of the early documents did not) leaving the author as someone named "Cert". In addition, I don't know about RFC 20 (and don't know if Vint would remember), but many of those early documents were produced in either NLS or the approximately-proprietary word processing systems of one environment or another, formats that no one (at least no one I know of or have talked with about this) considered appropriate for interchange, much less archival, use. Some were even produced using an ancient technology that I believe was called "typewriters". I've had my hands on a photocopy of the original distribution version of RFC 20 and not only was it on paper but it was pretty-printed or at least proportionally spaced, not the page-format ASCII we consider the norm today (or have until recently). Don't know where it is at the moment but I could find it if sufficiently motivated. > Better to have a dependency outside the RFC series. > > (The silliness of calling anything labelled 'request for > comments' a standard is now, alas, traditional.) I am not an engineer and try to avoid getting sucked into playing one on television (or elsewhere), but I went to school with engineers and was taught by engineers. I had always been taught that good engineering requires pragmatism and attention to issues that constrained the problem or solution spaces. From that point of view, calling an organization in which it is necessary to have this type of discussion about the details of reference stability and availability of 45-year-old documents the "Internet _Engineering_ Task Force" can equally be justified more by tradition than anything else. On the other hand, I really don't think such discussions are needed or helpful, even (or especially) in the IETF. john
- Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-tex… Black, David
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Barry Leiba
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John Levine
- Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir re… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Dave Cridland
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Barry Leiba
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Carsten Bormann
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- Re: Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- RE: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status of … Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status… manning bill
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John Levine
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Dave Crocker
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Julian Reschke
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin