IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt> (Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document) to Best Current Practice

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 2013 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF53621F9AD8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.996, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6n8aiZmDwSgb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212BF21F96ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r10so6644582pdi.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XYu2tFyO7CBtIrPgSqPf8PERSvs5J4slArd6OmE02dY=; b=PJ5FYgq3lSmwkeWa6wXsGXkjE2jVPScBXqQDz3HsoZMXkmXekBUjEXSqS+ASRs2sJa c6xhCe9GOYjExK4jCS7SFWlzPU+zvFzBy5nOZtnLxF9GA2qNehqa0050hppHcNtQ97Im o9Yq03E+pFlxjq8iY9P2L7Xh9On9/zY2mdwqUL7SQbFa0UyLamYxlscI1qK8dhOBEl7k 8TtXbpWiP8eyNGFbookCqcUGCnUv80aBD+axO995w54YW+MGZuH1CQu9WqFvuj0pmMsb K3XCxxzM+SP185PHU01Pxm+U2gZbbLy5NUDaSgErVeKzLIHrs8mxKYegn/Nr3WmYWdcR lF7A==
X-Received: by 10.68.135.35 with SMTP id pp3mr5348169pbb.190.1378246623868; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (250.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oj6sm26482961pab.9.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52265FE1.5080500@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:17:05 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt> (Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
References: <20130903141655.29247.40354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E74E1804-C61E-4CB2-A40A-CFFEF2714335@harvard.edu> <52260B63.6090504@qti.qualcomm.com> <522642FE.6060100@gmail.com> <52264A79.4020308@qti.qualcomm.com> <AC7694E1-C1A9-447C-B81C-34956C52CA0C@harvard.edu> <52264D5B.4060900@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52264D5B.4060900@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:17:04 -0000

Comment at the end...

On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> in line
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
>>   wrote:
>>
>>
>>   at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
>> paragraph in the same section
>>      An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
>>      appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
>>      shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
>>      actions.
>>
>> should also be removed since that is not being done either
>> and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that
>> does not actually exist
>>       
>>>>> I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything?
>>>>>      
>>>> Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status
>>>> is always
>>>> at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL
>>>> the RFC Editor prefers to cite.)
>>>>    
>>> I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm
>>> not sure we need to make further reference to it.
>>>
>>> Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the
>>> purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph.
>>> Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the
>>> rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it.
>>> Anyone want to speak strongly for or against?
> 
> I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's "it
> is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not
> actually exist".
> 
> Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is
> this another candidate for a short draft?

<rant class="short">So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves.</rant>

Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but
it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it.

  Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email