IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Tao [3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)]

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 March 2022 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3709B3A1982 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1648603330; bh=81P3lLDzznC8Cqtm4Wr89uefWEYbXED8XLpljQL46Dg=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc; b=dOQB1vktDMog3EmwU4WowKcH9+ZkILhxNayOICIaA+UqTq9+JW0EodfMR2zcQ3QjM BuG1kX5xYydMHh8UDFaBk/RQnz88vfsd6HKklEHmhBXvry6uR89kMpsxS9aJvAzpal 8Z5TObRFy8ItdCS0T4yHPudTq8kC1cVlxu5TS5q0=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Tue Mar 29 18:22:00 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DB63A1973; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1648603312; bh=81P3lLDzznC8Cqtm4Wr89uefWEYbXED8XLpljQL46Dg=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc; b=TPpon5rpcYb9lrEdVVpDa01xeMF0Td0SRqyrSRcV1FlMlqdddgnLA7vJjNzM+O4S5 h6GdNUk62uPfk/gGZ7El0N4xMTMY/rg6RkeD+NSYqOQfzlo6n8VteejvEq5yE4jLaq Nj8lCmqGD1O6HjRTc1S/kxgVyfnNF6Q7zbGlOKNU=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE613A1953 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.186, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 HNbjYF5_r9IX for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 750993A195E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 22U1LMA0073697 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:21:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1648603283; bh=p8T9nynkrxI30UwkbrQulFASdanUKCJfuARjsh+Jg30=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=XaE6t1AOgZpwRezWr7k7wjfRHbBAiTYLUuyF3AZ/Qnygz2at5sk5X2sDt7o4OXpYS /JpBK8qir/j1QHpOa9M8zaP5bLv0kMqfode8l+GjCelazCVMv4D0gVCQkTC+8yOQJ2 Fq1v8QawAQ0ND6OtBQNtjpNmyD2DSlYlsK22WZfs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.114]
Message-ID: <9f09e632-7379-1d0f-58c0-56b9b1a2caf3@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:21:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
References: <Yj2d4DJMFWJOxoZa@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <317196df-3363-36c9-2421-02d9e229f664@joelhalpern.com> <CO1PR11MB488130CFF42A9F309AE1E212D81A9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <95b5dab0-3eb5-536d-85fc-d428f26364ed@joelhalpern.com> <CABcZeBOSMRffY6cXjwn7A6d=JWDJmmBrgHxiPD-XRMTMazOjLw@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB48812B0C5B88C190FB4A28ECD81D9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7042bc99-5d14-993c-198b-1080b4ff5636@gmail.com> <CH0PR02MB8291A7A9598871412C035882D61E9@CH0PR02MB8291.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <39A3A9C9-5EED-4E44-9695-6186C5A3F7AC@akamai.com> <5abeddcf-1209-1dd1-a9c3-221ad1b78d98@gmail.com> <2fd7c18f-f4e2-374c-b852-8b12fef0f033@joelhalpern.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <2fd7c18f-f4e2-374c-b852-8b12fef0f033@joelhalpern.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/8eS2a0MXFT_Lr19XSoC_KPE1b-M>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Tao [3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)]
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Joel -

Github at least gives some insight into your question below.

See https://github.com/ietf/tao/commits/main

RjS

On 3/29/22 8:02 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I want to reinforce Brian's point that you seem to be removing 
> important things.
>
> Who is doing this editing?
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 3/29/2022 8:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Rich,
>>
>> I can't reduce this to a PR. It seems to me that the proposed new 
>> text for the Tao has lost some very important parts of the old text. 
>> It doesn't state that I-Ds expire after 6 months (which they still 
>> do, unless we amend RFC 2026), it doesn't underline that "They are 
>> most definitely not standards" and it doesn't state that they must 
>> only be cited as "work in progress". There's no need to quote BCP 9, 
>> but I think the points should be made.
>>
>> Also, BTW, as well as mentioning the optional Privacy Considerations, 
>> why not mention the optional Implementation Status section (RFC7942 = 
>> BCP 205)?
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian
>>
>> On 30-Mar-22 10:47, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>>     These couple of sentences in the Tao are actually from RFC2026 
>>>> and about the transient state of I-Ds.
>>>
>>> In fact, the current version of the Tao (maintained at 
>>> https://github.com/ietf/tao) doesn't have that language, but instead 
>>> just points to BCP 9. Phrases like "work in progress" are also 
>>> removed, pointing to BCP 9.
>>>
>>> We only just finished editing/merging before IETF 113, and there 
>>> wasn't time to update the website.  Please take a look at the GitHub 
>>> repo and see if the language there needs to be fixed.
>>>
>>> I think Valery's point got lost :(
>>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email