Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 10 September 2010 12:24 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E530A3A685A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jA6pVDoeUzAW for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE283A6A36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382832CC3C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:22 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VDvD6FFbjHrr for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:21 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58BB2CC30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:21 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C8A23B1.7040605@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:25:21 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C817C6F.8070303@gmail.com> <4C818963.4090106@bennett.com> <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com> <0ECC03C0-63B9-401F-B395-ACFBDF427296@gmail.com> <7F4C5F55-E722-4DF4-8E84-8D25628C55A3@standardstrack.com> <038B62A2-6B53-4FC2-8BDD-E1C9D6BDFB82@bbn.com> <4C880393.2070701@gmail.com> <9EEABCD0-9A34-4857-80FE-0CDBF06EEE22@bbn.com> <4C881E26.6090502@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C881E26.6090502@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:24:58 -0000
I do think informational RFCs (both IETF and non-IETF) are valuable. I would suggest though that their value is mostly NOT about ease of access, archival, those great ASCII graphics, or any other practical matter. The value is in our assessment of them being worthy of being published as RFCs. (Our = the IETF community, IESG and other reviews, RFC Editor board decisions, etc) I generally treat all information as suspect, even full standard RFCs (horror!) but I still think that across a number of different information sources even a vendor's protocol spec as an independent submission is pretty reliable. So yes, lets keep on publishing informational, experimental, and individual and independent submission RFCs. They are not the primary source of technical information in Internet technology, but for me at least they do provide a lot of value. Sam: about the binding Informational documents. I also do recognize that we sometimes make choices, say, about architectures or requirements and that we should stick with those decisions in future work. However, I would like to make two comments on this. First, many decisions of this sort are soft rather than hard. As an example, we often compromise on a requirement in order to reach a feasible solution. I'm not sure we want to bind ourselves to decisions of this type in any formal sense. Second, I think it is easier to think of the bindingness in terms of the history of the document and the practical situation than as a binary attribute of the document class. Jari
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 David Morris
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 John C Klensin
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ofer Inbar
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Matthew Ford
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Chris Fenton (Iridescent)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ben Niven-Jenkins
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Mans Nilsson
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Paul Hoffman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Gene Gaines
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Ronald Bonica
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Andrew G. Malis
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Stephen Farrell
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's David Morris
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Fred Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Olaf Kolkman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Shockey
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Kevin Fall
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Braden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Sam Hartman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Yoav Nir
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jari Arkko
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens