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 16:31 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 8901F1A1AAD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 08:31:10 -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 jubAPwn4TFZs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 08:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.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 DEA231A8AD6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 08:31:06 -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 1XxIG1-0003Du-Jv; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:30:57 -0500
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:30:52 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
Message-ID: <FD4852F4C5DBD845A8EF3858@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8A28A69-D7F0-4555-9A18-3F1B478BDD8C@cisco.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936289DC7@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <CAC4RtVA10gUzmug4+H5SW2JL4Q7-Yh_ntiqPTswYSUUgXMoczA@mail.gmail.c om>,<BB4CB3D8CA03EB4A03FEA99B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <E8A28A69-D7F0-4555-9A18-3F1B478BDD8C@cisco.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/Sj2U0BtE5EHOVuODBd-qb0VBI4Y
Cc: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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 16:31:10 -0000
Warning/disclaimer: I believe that reclassifying RFC 20 to match unquestionable reality is so obvious that I'm somewhat annoyed at having to spend time (and the community's time) discussing it. If the IESG feels justified in applying fast track procedures to documents that are far more controversial (and for which there is not even five or ten years of successful operational experience, much less 45), we really shouldn't need to spend time debating what can or should be done with RFC 20. If that annoyance comes through below and is unreasonable, my apologies. --On Saturday, December 06, 2014 15:02 +0000 "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote: > If it is just for IETF purposes it could be added to the > downref list without being reclassified. Well, actually, it probably can't. In addition to what I hope is a better and more substantive explanation below, this note concludes with a little protocol-lawyer explanation that could be the basis for an appeal of any attempt to use that approach. My understanding, and I think that of the community, was that the reason for RFC 6410 was to increase the number of document that we classified as Internet Standards by reducing the barriers to doing so. It would be truly unfortunate, IMO, if we now started introducing additional obstacles such as "this could be accomplished in some other way". In addition, there is nothing about the status of RFC 20 that is unknown. The way the maturity classification system was introduced resulted in identifying the status of many early document with "Unknown" as a short way to say "formal status not reviewed and assigned", but that is not because we didn't know. It is because the RFC Editor and the community didn't believe that going through those documents was worth spending time on. Those were kinder, gentler, and less procedurally constipated times; today, the failure to assign a classification to RFC 20 looks in retropsect more like an isolated error in judgment. The technology the document describes is in very heavy use (including in the specification that allowed these messages about it to be sent and interpreted), the RFC itself is extensively referenced in other IETF specs (not that such references are a requirement for Internet Standard even under 2026), and it is arguably the most stable RFC-published specification we still use (all lower-numbered RFCs are either status reports, associated with the NCP ARPANET, or documentation specifications that have been replaced by the RFC Format specification documents that start with RFC 825 and cumulate in the recently-approved RFC 7322). The Protocol-lawyer speaks: Strictly speaking and AFAIK, we've got two consensus documents that modify the RFC 2026 requirements about downrefs. The first is RFC 3967. It is fairly broad about what can be referenced, but requires an explicit statement in the Last Call announcement about what is being done. That can be waived for a given document, but only if there have been several such Last Call announcements in the past. There have been, again AFAIK, no such announcements for RFC 20, so a single Last Call to reclassify it would actually involve less work and time than applying that particular RFC 3967 rule. More important, RFC 3967 is quite explicit that use of a downref procedure is inappropriate for cases like this. The relevant sentence reads: "This procedure should not be used if the proper step is to move the document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate category." and the text that follows just strengthens that message. There is also no support in the more flexible RFC 4897 because it applies only to standards-track documents. If RFC 20 is not considered a standards-track document because it is listed with a status of "Unknown", then 4897 cannot be applied. If it is really a standards-track document in spite of that placeholder designation in the RFC Index, then there is no basis for treating it as other than a full standard and its listing as "unknown" is a clerical error that the RFC Editor should be directed to correct forthwith (with no reclassification procedure required). 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