IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Visibility of current RFC Maturity Levels (and how they got there (was: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 15 May 2018 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 56DBB126D74 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 G3ds6_xry--S for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D9D12711E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074422-1efff70000006739-4e-5afb06496972
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A2.8E.26425.A460BFA5; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w4FG9fqB017002; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:09:42 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w4FG9aBt015433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 May 2018 12:09:39 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:09:36 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Visibility of current RFC Maturity Levels (and how they got there (was: Re: Last Call: Moving RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407 (Sender-ID) to Historic)
Message-ID: <20180515160936.GD2249@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <CAKKJt-fcvUhQdDykv8mzS_a+AgAQO0jMBfK+zVk++FD=1+7w5w@mail.gmail.com> <a71ae235-57ca-1350-b4d7-36c78986cb5b@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a71ae235-57ca-1350-b4d7-36c78986cb5b@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprOKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nouvF9jvKYEmjkcWhxZdYLdou7mOy eLZxPovF6Z41TBbLpuxhdmD1aFnVy+yxc9Zddo8lS34yedzbEhrAEsVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV 0fzwNWvBevaKg/s/MDUwfmLtYuTkkBAwkTjT2cPexcjFISSwmEni0fn7YAkhgY2MEs+na0Ek rjJJXPz3gR0kwSKgKvHg3X8wm01ARaKh+zIziC0iYCzR2HWaFaSBWWA3o8S6BStYQBxhgSVA TnMPE0gVL1DVkof3ofY1M0pc625lhEgISpyc+YQFxGYW0JK48e8lUAMHkC0tsfwfB0iYU8BW Yn3HcbByUQFlib19h9gnMArMQtI9C0n3LITuBYzMqxhlU3KrdHMTM3OKU5N1i5MT8/JSi3RN 9XIzS/RSU0o3MYJD20VpB+PEf16HGAU4GJV4eDXu/IoSYk0sK67MPcQoycGkJMpr/QcoxJeU n1KZkVicEV9UmpNafIhRgoNZSYR3t9HPKCHelMTKqtSifJiUNAeLkjiv4OYPUUIC6Yklqdmp qQWpRTBZGQ4OJQneUtbfUUKCRanpqRVpmTklCGkmDk6Q4TxAw1NBaniLCxJzizPTIfKnGI05 Nr3r6WHmOHZ5Wg+zEEtefl6qlDjvPhagUgGQ0ozSPLhpoPQkkb2/5hWjONBzwrxlIAN5gKkN bt4roFVMQKuKTn0HWVWSiJCSamAsaZX7blKxIjF1W6mz45SUc4Kre10LdbVyhddEBWZM3vJV f7/9Ca1lu44qRs/aNbd74cfO2nO6bbv53wRG1W25arzuf+u1KLkjWakNNw6xbOjojzR7vGjX ZY6OjO/ip1W7WW9pfAsNW+Ikxjjhycob8hZh3uVFHr3Gxu3C9Y/ULb79aDotH6rEUpyRaKjF XFScCACcmwSLKgMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xG4cgDM_iSgOJJsFOv7ZhvLpepY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 15 May 2018 16:09:50 -0000

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:17:11PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Top posting to note that if you find the RFC via its DOI you
> also get the correct status first. I think the RFC Editor has
> done the best they can, consistent with the policy that the
> bits in the canonical form of an RFC never change.

That touches on John Klensin's question about where people would
reasonably expect to find things (RFCs and metadata about them).

For me as an AD, I am either looking at the tools.ietf.org HTML
version or the datatracker page, or I am lamenting Google's
algorithm that placed me somewhere else.  But I don't know what
"people in general" are "reasonably expecting" to do; perhaps the
RFC Editor's plain-text repository remains canonical in usage as
well as in archival status, even if it is not for me.  (It's also
unclear how useful http/rsync/etc access logs would be for trying to
answer this question.)

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email