IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of this memo

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 20F503A1BE4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4jGNlVASUiFc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8C83A1BE3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id g125so6325884iof.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bZFfqZZqAQc2KXpc43fIV2uKekoJ90ztYM7JDKO1xF0=; b=g/ZSX+GP5U6y8Fm2s84AF/81st4rwwukIN/Uoh3D4w9XSOlB0q4Y3mIgCB9DeO03Hx qQtT1E9QnmfwTzGAV3LsVuGcAB8SccFSS+VOJxHOo0sgzQwREYo8pucg/QKMjhs2DlTB tblbkNZ2fnhSBARsnqv73Iftl658p+KdUXgeAfWqOf7JFRDPARGuNbzwS5ToCtMddO4A QHaeC8Yiq+vm8n+B0bIixyiDL0CRgvOnBmqfrENfhvZhOVn0zNIwNRaFlriGjX8/4vdA 5mUyG5s8l3Dcaq5v38EQWSc8OtVceXPoddMUtYB26C4lTWhTW83W13ZwC13pmuS2zGZz tzaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bZFfqZZqAQc2KXpc43fIV2uKekoJ90ztYM7JDKO1xF0=; b=tbLiKIMVkGixr5LBLLdFAR1ZfO9/r4KXq7be7hNmuLcDe+jElsUKFqmg3psntKFT+9 UbkWCb0bSrN09DVBF7cD/N5rfFvXOr1SJ+qm1ifGQhWYbaxTu8VLTgx9HDuvvy7g23o7 j4xMf+Ql0pdytqCOx7jbX8qtzxZcFJUnunt8uVO8EObWG+PI8D7Yr8yley6fyx7r0zUe 8SjLym1VDSkreg5lNzya8lerwxUl7pjbzv5WQO1R/Fo97G4SuTh4zkwqEdZgmvYLbiCH 9r2zdJx0pS9CvalpdM3FpmtM4umpfRr3V7QGm7t7guHJZgLf7CBExbvvUgIfKm7qoqts Fr3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YaiIS2mT1X9P9TbbreB6S7KyhGYMSyDVajzK4k4Cs4m6ElNqW c8f3VbKg2sMmZrUn28a18HJ0mvjtG4E68+yp8Fw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlP5epJfRMKruN3Wo9Qvsz3yGTTnVp5+SP6qHK5JYx3wQj86Ns2lT5vY5vbqMUc2JTdIYojl3Xfuw8449jJps=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3146:: with SMTP id m6mr21167549ioy.158.1619549443283; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <269463648.9898.1619530011972@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <7a3beb1b-f3f3-412c-532f-dfab606dd866@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a3beb1b-f3f3-412c-532f-dfab606dd866@network-heretics.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:50:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGae7EZKzUdP0PjxJUVG8LvyNZ_8Cstna6zUQdnSrH-6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/auwly0BqKuAnrCK7gCU6XguH6C0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 27 Apr 2021 18:50:54 -0000

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:37 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/21 9:26 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> >> Il 27/04/2021 10:41 Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> ha scritto:
> >>
> >> 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?
> > URIs can help, because they are posted around to refer to documents, so they can contain prominent semantic "messages", either in the hostname or in the top path element. However, I think it would be even better to do this in the filename, as the filename persists even when the file is downloaded or attached. For example, you could reverse the order of the initial elements and things would already be much clearer:
> >
> > ietf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> > irtf-draft-<wg>-<subject>
> > independent-draft-<author>-<subject>

> Binding status to the name of the resource is a Bad Idea partially
> because the name can persist long after the status changes and partially
> because it can confer status prematurely.

Mistakes can be made but that is a Bad reason to never make a decision
and thus make no progress. The six month expiration of drafts helps a
lot in this area. In fact, if we wanted to, we could incorporate the
expiration into the file name so that it was
draft-......-expires20211027.txt or the like.

> Even expecting people to
> repost existing I-Ds with new names to reflect WG "adoption" is dubious.

I think it is a great idea. It makes it clear whether the authors or
the WG is in charge of the draft.

> And we really don't want to "bless" drafts before they have community
> consensus.

If you can't do anything about the contents of a draft other than send
arguments to the authors/editors, until it passes the IESG (which is
what shows it has IETF community consensus) then, to the first
approximation, the IETF will be totally paralyzed.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email