Re: Internet-Draft draft-rsalz-2026bis-00.txt is now available.

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09-Aug-24 08:22, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 1/ RFC 2026 was the product of significant discussion in a IETF working group - any update should follow
> 	the same path

+1. Start with a BOF. A proper clean-up of these two documents is badly needed. (So kudos to Rich for triggering a discussion.)

> 
> 2/ it was an error to put the copyright & IPR  rules in RFC 2026 - far better that the copyright & IPR rules are in
> separate RFCs (which also were the products of significant discussions in a working group)

I think the first step, for both 2026 and 2418, should be to produce versions with all updates and errata applied - in other words, start with what we actually have today. That would automatically include removal of all the IPR stuff, which as Scott says needs to remain separate, as it is today. It's clerical work, but essential. (I don't know whether Rich has attempted this because his drafts don't tell me.)

Then determine in what ways current practice differs from what the cleaned up versions say. And what other documents might also be non-trivially affected.

15 RFCs update RFC 2026. 292 RFCs cite it, according to the tracker.
5 RFCs update RFC 2418. 36 RFCs cite it.

Also determine what we want to change, if anything. For example, I would want to see draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all seriously considered.

Finally decide how granular we want the result to be. We long ago split out the IPR stuff - do we want to further split 2026 and 2418 into more than two documents? Do we want codify stuff that is still folklore?

Big job, but IMHO necessary.

Acronym needed, to succeed POISED, POISED95, POISSON, NEWTRK, PESCI and PUFI.

     Brian