Re: BCP97bis a process problem

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 18 October 2021 21:22 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 9AD453A0CDF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 RR_JTQF7GxXd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 2D9B83A0CDA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id e10so7286346plh.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jehBYs3ZT1lOK2zANB+VuaHCywQb6Vk27ykiZS2nHdY=; b=fhGt4XMtYzufYPAfXOLaHJVYbvNIbJSTa2ODzYXWs2wxvE03tROxRaM5YVm0kDA0k9 jInUymwsZma8uRi9zQHj+vu0o15q6gBweHQyUDKjriAeinifcswOKjraLsww00e6oY9j I0JAph9ywBRPCJy+VnjRzNRsO1HEtgMFNIz41S0Pm4DRycmtuSOxDt7lVb/mf8QUUMtM CVDdpr0KvIrHwerRQp7nGDzmZoImAy5HsTWjZGIyoyLyYR9wNgNVqtv2Sb0zk10LoPkr jl1Vf+r+UKsDqITH4ZURA0qE69IUEOaKzrjQyOqz3ywg8b1DWTjC/sWZwj0p9WOa71wC 5wUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jehBYs3ZT1lOK2zANB+VuaHCywQb6Vk27ykiZS2nHdY=; b=tpw4PBntQ7rCP4bOCU+Ie0OD9ER9g2738DLGDBMaTo2qBVXjLV2EJdzl9WWvBru7kI WTD5MqsADEAFcF+GzGdm8FZ/g2qbRdlBedPVv+IaI96rZSovfHsRdzECHBIuTJTuEwMt RgbM2SmPFiZqPlw6yCbIQua2dOENMSEmO/THUSe3tGy3nz/xVcguGpXnKPN+w8Feil+I wk68MqFsKmFLfu0oKAhXrzEgKrtq/MMFSxIZeaItAoNKmCRxovBTq/Geb5cXENBvg2N8 eBc3zyMqqdDhk6fadrowvrR4tsnGg1gnvBT3/GhiO4pr4dVkZIbsnrusefUE0srgXJNB rIdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LgOmWbg2TWDdTQUnMImvxktkLGppNjRVZN2bficGWiI/Fz7Jv XomXMxda+bZ3WIJ2jJarU60HE/blgfTRnQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBgzdVzX+WUVT1lq7ixRkcPi2MVYuiFKbUiLT+VZ9jQ8QilJqtsHGH+YQrtKVcBFpKhp9aYw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b0c:b0:13f:aaf4:3df3 with SMTP id o12-20020a1709026b0c00b0013faaf43df3mr14129527plk.75.1634592164340; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:102d:e801:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:102d:e801:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id np17sm385086pjb.7.2021.10.18.14.22.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BCP97bis a process problem
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.com> <616D935F.4090407@btconnect.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <969c6a44-902a-b929-82dc-a1a22c85244e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:22:41 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <616D935F.4090407@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gaxwhYlZEK_TnxaWtJAytLLcWwE>
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:22:50 -0000

Tom,
On 19-Oct-21 04:31, tom petch wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 18:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I've got a draft that seeks to update BCP 97, which is the guidance around
>> how we handle normative downward references.  It's currently made up of
>> three separate RFCs and an erratum, so this will consolidate those into a
>> single document.  The main mission here, though, is to update the guidance
>> around normative references to external documents, especially those behind
>> paywalls.
>>
>> The draft is being sponsored by Erik Kline and can be found in the
>> datatracker here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/
>>
>> Feedback is welcome, either on this thread or to me or Erik directly.  If
>> people are generally happy with it as-is, we can initiate Last Call before
>> IETF 112 begins next month.
> 
> I have called out a number of downrefs in the past year or two, of 
> Normative References to IETF documents that are not Standards Track RFC 
> or I-D, and the response has sometimes been for the author to revise the 
> I-D to make it an Informative Reference.  This is a nonsense; the I-D 
> cannot be understood without the Reference in question.
> 
> I can think of two explanations.
> 
> 1) the author is not familiar with the processes and thinks that I-D 
> Nits it ordering the author to reclassify the reference
> 
> 2) the author is familiar with the processes and is trying to game the 
> system.

There's a possible 3rd explanation:

3) the reference didn't need to be normative in the first place.

I certainly saw that a number of times as a Gen-ART reviewer.

> Either way, I think that the process is failing in  way that this I-D 
> does not address.

If there's a failure, surely it's a failure of WG Last Call or IETF
Last Call reviewers to detect that an Informative reference should
be a Normative downref? That's not a process bug, it's poor
execution of the process.

   Brian