IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BCP97bis

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 17 October 2021 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 298E73A0522 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cE2ByNzdMOKF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E42FA3A0529 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AA6300C0C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:52:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vCOnsQ0DmcWo for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80AB93005D5; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <D290EE8C-6709-4A08-A827-41F7494D4E58@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:52:51 -0400
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A117413E-065D-478E-A1CA-3421D5FB0D12@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.c om> <C657F78F-FF99-4898-8A08-844B32589DDE@vigilsec.com> <CAL0qLwbLqyWSqFGL2x-FpXXD19QG9-eZkrnTVm_fxt3tUfZSgg@mail.gmail.com> <C92D456E-63ED-453B-8F33-3AAECA40D1DA@vigilsec.com> <27721119-D39D-427D-8EEE-C5027DA15B06@akamai.com> <007c01d7c2dc$9090c780$b1b25680$@acm.org> <5385fd6f-b7a7-3baa-1374-f4d8d87216fd@joelhalpern.com> <6454.1634428177@localhost> <6702b78c-037f-f5fd-78a6-901a999dab54@gmail.com> <7E25FC36-0757-45EA-AB12-76F6818C797C@sobco.com> <B6BBF8C8788D1ECEACF549C0@PSB> <D290EE8C-6709-4A08-A827-41F7494D4E58@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eGfZaWspyF-eybH4jA0X_Iod3aU>
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: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 19:52:59 -0000


> On Oct 17, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-10-17, at 14:47, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> 
>> FWIW, I have no idea whether permission was obtained to extract
>> and reproduce material from X3.4-1968 to act as the basis for
>> RFC 20 or whether the conclusion at the time was that it was not
>> necessary.  
> 
> (Random fuzzy recollection: I seem to remember that what made me start campaigning for RFC 20 to be a STD was that I wanted to stop people from referencing X3.4 just in order to avoid a downref.)
> 
> We should do this more often.

Wouldn't it have been trivial to add RFC 20 to the downref registry?  Of course, there is no need to do it now that it is a standard.

0020 ASCII format for network interchange. V.G. Cerf. October 1969.
     (Format: TXT, PDF, HTML) (Also STD0080) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD)
     (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0020) 

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email