Re: Status of this memo
Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 11:28 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 9831A3A1136 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 FX0gjmzm6G1G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (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 C012C3A112A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id b9so7217356iod.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:28:40 -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=+ae51FKArYPZT3O9Ei9H8eytj7iD6g/CQLi/MNmvkQo=; b=ppmY4ZG4fa5XqRVJDoplNdOUtzsLqzkaG8Qup6+e/Lh3gu450n6TGFRwR/M6FTkuRb 1Ub8rQTxQlOKeOSR7x83Xf8QEiaoX8PymFBFa+hiQaa8h8l8mU10Xg2u9y/WPlcLjKqs fqp5lkTHlHYWiXvKttNaSaJzlvNm81W+LXfp8DmlM7ZsAkiY0AcBoxGLNyn+wCaRlWw0 oR/YImsbtQXL6DmExZwknKDPwbWT+EkEGIsQ5cS7LsCiPjfGtHkTRq/oiyjrXhU8dakv h4aQJcRFj8+2Op68/b5ABcHIL9ldOn+t7CmQ2RkssBa6t/d/eWyXzG0JoZ++yvFJyACx IkJQ==
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=+ae51FKArYPZT3O9Ei9H8eytj7iD6g/CQLi/MNmvkQo=; b=Y1mFBVdljdHMMEdZq0j5CaKyOlqw8lFgnQCexVF7iaFQI75dyGLuKnyvRD9vWKNSdN Tr8TGj4HRCWrwK4BXj0Ni7FDM5uHFYFtFFEXSewOxxbCIQHD26kiU9IcJDRzq09B9bKq t7L4O2wix4MeYOMlscPWCCGS3xNtbHnZSRWza4pDibj5JDIB1oX87nOTIpPl8MX6bgST 3odaaYjfj0qBMMXQYQSG256zl0x4szo64VCfBi48PN0ZUM+VWZgUDvYqO932d/l8xbOx cgp4wOXaGvLo5foIDeBmKS1S29CT8071PgqYRjFsSvf9VCfm/xSYG9yWoOpUvDU1hef/ VHVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531rmtKYlkX1rZK04Rp9tcyel4r7H7nUtRZ3LrkLzlK/1mYN+nZc HV5AXQUAKVqM4R9h7ZleFjKpXP4HdAvM870jIBU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbMG+CAWjwxjIdZEEWe4wJ4QE0LRUhC6dZIGlZ/uBcGTC/H4KeBreXvMgxZDOLM6lwgUCn0esjFAdWs+F1F3s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:3387:: with SMTP id h7mr10007234jav.96.1619522918839; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:28:38 -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>
In-Reply-To: <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:28:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEes27zt98H0Ez8bAyVNs70b3feQtfi+8+kqPrW2zvuoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sqo5ruAvDNQA6TZpAq3fCQF8F78>
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 11:28:46 -0000
Hi Lars, On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:42 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-4-27, at 11:28, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote: > > Was there ever any discussion of adopting a more specific formal name for IETF I-Ds, e.g. "IETF draft" ("IRTF draft" etc.)? "Internet-draft" could stay as a rarely used generic umbrella term, but if more precise terms come into common use, clarity will gain a lot. > > not that I am aware of. I agree that indicating adoption of a draft via the name (i.e., draft-ietf or draft-irtf) is not something that will be obvious to many people outside the IETF. > > > I am also thinking of the difference between adopted IETF drafts and individual submissions; that was completely lost on me until my first several months of active participation, and I am sure that almost all Internet developers and engineers out there miss it too, with the obvious consequence that any "Internet draft" is taken as an official IETF-sanctioned document. It would be better if there were clearly different terms in use for the two types of documents, even better if with different repositories, URL patterns etc. > > There was a suggestion recently to not serve I-Ds from ietf.org domains until they were adopted by the IETF. Do you think serving individual drafts from another domain would help make that distinction clearer? Drafts get copied to other places, forwarded as attachments, etc. I think originally serving them from a different domain would not be worth the trouble and would cause confusion not clarity. Besides, I would still want the datatracker to, by default, search across all drafts regardless of their adoption status which would seem a bit odd if, when unadopted, they were coming from example.org or whatever. Changing the first token in the file name seems much more powerful to me. Perhaps, to make a clean break, they should be proposal-lastname-... and wip-wgname-... (or rgname) (wip = work in progress) or the like so there is no longer anything starting with "draft-". You might also need an "adopted" type draft name for AD sponsored drafts and there are other cases... > 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? Sure, seems reasonable to make a change along those lines. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > Thanks, > Lars
- Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Brim
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- RE: Status of this memo Michael McBride
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Randy Presuhn
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Christian Huitema
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Status of this memo Simon Josefsson
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- RE: Status of this memo Gorman, Pierce
- Re: Status of this memo Nick Hilliard
- Re: Status of this memo tom petch
- Re: Status of this memo Warren Kumari
- Re: Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo S Moonesamy