Re: Status of this memo
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 27 April 2021 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 49B8C3A1ACE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 9Hy1Uvh4Y0Vo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 455A03A1AD1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:5003:6514:3d9:d709] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:5003:6514:3d9:d709]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07E3660031D; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:41:25 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1619512886; bh=BBBZhlfaRBnjS9r97loX+AD1A+rJau6Eu0jFwScwFPg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=tTO6FQ1c1fRfu+I4sHyyvf9cp9FcYV3e6S5ZczpYP6ol6QGW2VzwlvoSgFzvgceTv p93jWbFK8fX5UoIa2ClIztXfixkA7wPsGTUPzyElK65v0BB0aV/xOIHm9QlT2Y8hMK WyElHkFs384NMCEPqhk9bQ6nE5+FjBjWSXtSm1HE=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B2FB095-B118-40B4-B8C2-258D9383D14C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:41:24 +0300
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org>
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: 07E3660031D.A2B97
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xjH9xnE3MCGrx-3TgVwOuLNUKT0>
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 08:41:46 -0000
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? 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? 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