Re: BCP97bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 18 October 2021 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A474C3A1447 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T_4tzTVrExV6 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4853A1430 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o42so8688263vkf.9 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e0owh6qpe9mIcAmlR3dqM0VK0KrH/jpaztZQQeqR3kQ=; b=MZyNF7/Sfz6DOx6jextKWcxgc2Bd8I0jpQFxMb/oP0FAPVrGoj4my+2vijTgvoXkE0 um8rLtsbk9zHYdYzjrDDVLWxvHnAxpAPokfOxF8KI3FYnWTqf7e/a4MBb1A4Ui6mDG8E hGfVwJCQ0ZF1CamXOiG08j+XgQgU/emFaFVIOKALNmCXHYLnrlTBqdkFC02/lSyx9kIa h6bkLSMhgURotF1Udu+mvXQm+//jEHDiaMamLQ10O16If6uJ9/35686Uq2+DvKp5HNXR RfvMKdj6LwSZcVEN64RxB9/PxvW+xC1j/YDdm/pMyEZwz2vzjZoG/2w3TPR3imjye00S /mtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e0owh6qpe9mIcAmlR3dqM0VK0KrH/jpaztZQQeqR3kQ=; b=VUGDrLm8O+pAFqcf8gSHQ60ipVrz2N8jW9spKwEHbjjryPr2ANKmTUR4ErUaWC1l5Z vavYiLse2cRzVwqa5u/gxo5Y6EhMUxvTuBTQk4/rLDSiC458o9An2G5DPZDGuH7CCYlp WvvHr3TFmHexZSro8x6jZFT7bXoCqbpY65CSuWdhHVWhHpasysUPJPNaxQ/rfpvS4uEA Vy+KZLF5y6v/R2K7pUI6hMXNsch7oygYGQDxGrGANX17vET+IdL69e2mGGZNLuaDBjTF 71SIUj3uJpAIiXGcFjx4dkF9yv0SqqNsVIYzXyWwLIV6g8ixWVWV7zcw+eDVv21AKT81 IEig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+fIw7YNOzp3nWzICHPdQTjHF3lr+Y7MLCIo1iISMjMHnroaLv sN7bDJTgU2ewhzTUk+vV+vz5hfprMEhp6g9THtE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyr6qtRD0L4TqaIrR+5RdpwKlrtTci6ukrLQk6hPnvbUrwyrvBeoHzD0DzSmUwTUUOWwKDXT4V7UQLHoRxqOFY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:901:: with SMTP id j1mr25381476vka.13.1634567613026; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:33:21 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ef944c05cea16dd8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:33:45 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:29 AM Salz, Rich <> wrote:

>    - At a minimum, authors/editors of source documents need to secure
>    freely available copies of the target documents for use by all anticipated
>    reviewers during the source document's life cycle, which includes working
>    group participants, any member of the community that chooses to participate
>    in Last Call discussions, area review teams, IANA expert reviewers, and
>    members of the IESG. The mechanism for acquiring access to those documents
>    is to be be specified in the shepherd writeup.
> I understand the desire for everything that is defined by the IETF to be
> built on public freely available resources.  I think this goes WAY WAY WAY
> too far.
> Can I buy a copy of a standard and require it to be postal mailed to
> everyone serially?

That's not what we're going for.  It's not an insistence that everything be
built on public, freely available resources.  However, reviewers -- from
the WG to the IESG and everyone in between -- need to be able to do their
reviews while having access to the normative references.  So this says
that, at a minimum, those resources need to be made available somehow
during the document's development, but there's no requirement for that to
continue in perpetuity.

The IESG has had multiple cases during my time there where we haven't had
access to some normative reference, and so we can't do our job.  This has
added long delays to document processing.  That's what we're trying to
address here.