Re: Status of this memo

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:29 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:09 AM Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:18 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >   There was a suggestion recently to not serve I-Ds from ietf.org
> domains until they were adopted by the IETF. Do you think serving
> individual drafts from another domain would help make that distinction
> clearer?
> >>
> >> I do not think it would be worth the effort to do this. And it would
> probably inconvenience people who already participate and whose fingers are
> already permanently "trained."
> >>
> >> >    There was also a suggestion to add something to the boilerplate
> text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can submit an I-D; they
> have no formal standing until they are adopted by a group in the IETF or
> IRTF". Would that provide additional clarification?
> >>
> >> Oh yes, PLEASE!
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > If we do this, we should also explicitly say that a document has been
> adopted and by what group in which organization. Probably on the same line
> that says where to discuss it
> >
> > "This draft has been adopted by the IETF FOO working group, comments on
> the [e-mail] list"
> > "This draft has been adopted by the IRTF BAR working group, comments on
> the [e-mail] list"
> > "This draft has been adopted by the PHB foundation XYZ working group,
> comments on the [e-mail] list"
> >
> > Why would PHB foundation use an IETF list? Same reason as to publish as
> an Internet Draft, to be under Note Well.
>
> Authors of a draft can say whatever they want in the body of the draft
> about what organizations have adopted / endorsed / implemented /
> tested /whatever the draft but the required boilerplate for IETF
> stream documents should not say any such thing about non-IETF
> entities, the required boilerplate in IRTF stream documents should not
> say any such thing about non-IRT entities, etc.
>

The discussion line comes after the boilerplate. Individual IDs should be
clearly differentiated from WG adopted IDs in the body of the text, not
just some arcare file naming convention only understood by initiates.



> > If we go this route, we really need to have a final status for documents
> that is not an RFC. For better or worse, every RFC comes with the
> imprimatur of the IETF whether IETF wants to acknowledge that or not.
>
> That status is Expired Draft.


I don't think so. There are drafts that are expired with prejudice and
drafts which have merely not been updated.


> The problem of different types of RFCs
> being conflated is a long standing problem that has been discussed
> many times before with no consensus about how to rectify it or whether
> it is necessary to rectify it. I see no reason to conflate that
> problem with the question of draft file naming and draft boilerplate.
> Start a different thread with a different subject if you want to get
> into that rat hole.
>

The reductive method doesn't work because this is a system with more than
one issue and if you make changes to one part, other parts change.

> The current situation in which there are WG RFCs and AD sponsored RFCs
> and individual submissions is wide open to abuse and has been abused.
>
> So you think things should not be as "wide open"? That is, things
> should be more closed off, restrictive, and difficult?
>

I think things should be wide open but the resulting work product should be
clearly marked as such and distinguished from IETF consensus work product.