IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of this memo

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 9404F3A1C0E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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: 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 WFrZOwadjAB5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 28E363A1C0C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id b9so8618048iod.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ZhUiSrUL815DRu/9z39cb1I13+cv111HTKI5URT7XI=; b=Tl5JcyY26Sn+lZL0h5VyUJ9TOo5crEoDUadj1EKYCLrtyFgJ68wjI5Y8pesHuPSfEJ XFfl0TJ54xOJa1sRW6DN5Yf0SZplkD1LXPCT7Q90Zha7ZaSN53gs5FplOQiEYtsqgXfK YgRz9RVFH4w7B6HiRtSFUEeSCXMqalAdh3+m3hN0P0LyuWoWuVdjXHLiVQB23YPCYJaT IxeMnagA0Lk9VKJlJPjChqHGKLHBQip5euTfiInECEDvOSQ0jXqS+axT/yLRTG09ji/F fS3flQTVdoxnF7A3sW2Px0AXCqlCaGQeCF/ybbKp0uBf5hryQrlPL6QTJEGDO1x6WEY2 UlJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ZhUiSrUL815DRu/9z39cb1I13+cv111HTKI5URT7XI=; b=rnlfW51DXpXcSv95xcb6e8k51l8YgUdFzrsCY7WOQWauFTJpfWEJljeN9k9s+5OZkK 7PX4PXqerxDQhQt7VAW3ldbgWJ4kk1hN+PBmKDr7uRuDHSV/e6A7pl8lKVNw3hn8igdc f0uCJvhkmrdIb04dtJ2HdvFYBFCHEUdAs7xQpImwdSIE6aeZxa01IelrrquekL4QPUyg pwjW+yIyZylJFy0Hs88ZWqKcEHA/suDVtOZmkgY2DWs+VjbgLT+taHA/GS+Y1DUzHsVh QJRILAZJfkEoynNQFWb+RDHPXKyIQgoRN0Pkk0HjI0wBfZwVhQOkpYh3FWFgChZJJyIV IFDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301Di41BeTj2RycOpi19jT8+w2CYhcq8o8zYpzG073srwb87+QE TMSqpz/NdDbnlztFySMs8Vn60hVagFkGwyjwMX0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUkCOOJR5IsVq6tDu9rSbRNq1ZTuUUA9VPmy2zh69duJR4f0Fk44iUC6rw0ty9X6pjLO0+f0ujFnQ5OwySa8o=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8b09:: with SMTP id k9mr20112550ion.185.1619549729383; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:55:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEz4x3HtUhWQ0ONYCpyHy27E4u7_chVEuHi3rDr+sc39A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pUupjuCTF6Bu3_rs1yh81KAWhHU>
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:55:35 -0000

I agree with Andy below but just to be clear, WG draft has a formal
standing as a starting point for work -- they are a draft over which
the WG has taken control.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:07 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> I disagree. WGs have charters, which result in RFCs. During that process, they have consensus-based working drafts that are refined to meet their charter goals. That's an "adopted" draft. But it doesn't have to be based on a single individual draft, a working draft can be the result of merging earlier individual drafts, or can even originate as a WG draft without a preceding individual draft or drafts. But yes, working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal standing as such.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:27 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/27/21 10:17 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>
>>    There was also a suggestion to add something to the boilerplate text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can submit an I-D; they have no formal standing until they are adopted by a group in the IETF or IRTF". Would that provide additional clarification?
>>
>> Oh yes, PLEASE!
>>
>> concur.   Except get rid of the "adopted" bit, because even assuming that "adoption" of a draft by a WG is useful, it doesn't imply any kind of broad support from the organization.   Just say that the existence of a draft does not mean it has any formal standing with IETF or any other organization.   Documents with formal standing in IETF are published as RFCs.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email