Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

> On Apr 7, 2024, at 2:53 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 07.04.2024 19:47, John Scudder wrote:
>> I think one or more of the contributions to this thread expressed dismay that by referencing an I-D from a registry (or approving a registry policy that permits the same) we harm ourselves by giving the lie to the "inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference" I-D boilerplate. Others have pointed out the "including informal documentation” phrasing of RFC 8126’s definition of “Specification Required”. These two things are manifestly in tension, but I’d like to point out that to resolve that tension by being sticklers for the draft boilerplate disclaimer, i.e. refusing to approve registries that permit I-D’s as references for Specification Required, would be to create a perverse incentive for authors to do their work outside the IETF.
> 
> I'm not sure that's perverse, because it's laying responsibility at the feet of those who have a vested interest in maintaining interoperability of their works.

The person who stands up the ad hoc spec has a vested interest at that moment in obtaining a code point. I don’t think there’s a basis for asserting that as a reliable principle, that individual will have a vested interest after the code point has been issued. I very much don’t think there’s a basis for believing that their ad hoc spec will continue to be available after (for example) their retirement. It’s been pointed out recently (although I don’t recall if it’s in this thread or elsewhere) that I-D’s don’t benefit from the same explicit promise of archival integrity RFCs do. Fair enough, but as a practical matter, I still trust their longevity and integrity much more than I do any ad hoc arrangement. 

But document hosting arrangements are subordinate to the main point in any case. I was referring to the perverse incentive to keep the specification development outside the IETF process. IMO, we want to be a place where people want to bring their ideas for development. I laid out reasons why the suggested draconian enforcement of the I-D boilerplate could lead to people avoiding us instead. If that’s not a perverse incentive, I don’t know what is.

—John