Re: [rfc-i] Informational...

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 17:14 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 localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AC03A0AE7; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RCx4RphE0EK4; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BEC53A0AEE; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5334F40705; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0363F40705 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f2jvMg7ommXS for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5F5EF40704 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id q14so5106927qtr.9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Q5j17k7YXbURIZSaLLbfZ2lJHWz7dq7KGI5oFN329xM=; b=UB3wRUCjBe9YRaxBL9+IJ2xQ7pV+cBTg2+1HMk3N+FKjv3NM9NGz3O27QaFVVc/48v IIfB1aWiwLrPKcpphcKb+Vs+iI508GwIyfHRIpIldV4/ooTe3oT/dgOFTG6vSjFrXe3h UY3+dyt5+FjifHbwcL+ky+HpwBEc7JxlmcAlv1LcrNHQBQX0c0rngXFz+Z1qD6Z40BCO hl4Umi7DVI3LgytN3cylQYmuinaX8gEuuJcL6lyOVcqLVcxEGlsRmrT76fleS3pynBby /5zpK6c8Wx8CNkH3cmO7RQs1/0Iuk9lh4/AuEQx1+6TYyk6ecX+8nlb9I4ra3qXS6lZ1 c0aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Q5j17k7YXbURIZSaLLbfZ2lJHWz7dq7KGI5oFN329xM=; b=J3xKehjSoIiKHVSYVvNwwQSGySoDPkAN4tmn6NkgcPOW5At8zBmIuNNfxOvQ25BhSZ gMt5vKhLp3ZnbMq/szV+YWOEoahaPdIbfH44MPWBifrVzijGGEgfpC8bOlSsgguAAT1c Non+GpI6D0TTXZc3G8pM4KEPRc7e46K1E1lhppeL99lJ8hxOiaFCtRy06NL7haJ1f9ah yFpptoZ2jS2FED+NDInItcIqF2FH3kOtJxsRkjCud+TmnjpMWHFGsx4aR9RWXAzz0RuJ T6b/qttzkifYXGoNMD5yH0Mwn2ZbzLL0lGeOs/BwwRrTEcLYMIKM06w2QFtVfRae2ljL kV9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530AF8FkGklcLNMGmbqepqRXp6IbTRlWEBWOl00AnwzSKERtrrwL ux8BlbdWfTfr6ugMZA0vk0TcV9sSji8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFLFA5nZjbZzpfZb0DH3NTQhvYeJwrkZrJXscOcg5V7Ytnt1gDP5A5f6v33WYhH/lWukf1TQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2744:: with SMTP id n62mr9564654qtd.152.1591895686663; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.115] (pool-71-163-188-115.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.163.188.115]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v59sm2788184qte.96.2020.06.11.10.14.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
References: <021bfdfc-136c-ea07-e2d5-042d9e429522@nthpermutation.com> <CAA=duU2smrFwZy_mAm6c=dnQqD3z8ErmDA8bAzZLh87dpt4Q-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Message-ID: <c55c0b9d-dc92-4410-a6ec-489a52db0179@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:14:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2smrFwZy_mAm6c=dnQqD3z8ErmDA8bAzZLh87dpt4Q-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Informational...
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://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5213700563677287025=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 6/9/2020 6:17 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Mike,
>
> You left off what's probably the most common category, an IETF WG 
> consensus document that doesn't contain protocol conformance language 
> (e.g. architecture, framework, overall requirements, etc.), thus is 
> not on the standards track.

What - not "Other; Uncategorized"?

Seriously though - I agree.   I'm wondering if there might be 2-4 
categories we could agree on to break these down.  Or maybe just one?

Working Group Explanatory Material?


>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:24 PM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com 
> <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi -
>
>     I was looking at a document that's currently on last call for the
>     third
>     time in the transport area with a proposed status of "Informational".
>     After reading it, I was wondering why it was being published by the
>     Transport area, as opposed to being an architectural discussion by
>     the
>     IAB or even as a product of the IRTF?  In any event, it got me
>     thinking
>     about the Informational category of documents and wondering what
>     would
>     happen if we added a sub-header or sub-category for documents
>     published
>     under this banner - here's a strawman list:
>
>     IAB Architectural Note - applied to IAB consensus documents
>     IAB Policy Note -  ditto
>     IESG Policy Note - applied to IESG consensus documents
>     Community Policy Note - applied to community consensus documents
>     wherever originated
>     Technical Cross Publication - previously published documents where
>     the
>     IETF will not gain change control
>     IRTF Pure Research
>     IRTF Applied Research
>     IETF Path Not Taken (applied to documents that weren't accepted as WG
>     items, but might have been  viable alternatives ISE or Area Director
>     sponsored)
>     Individual Technical Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Policy Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Architectural Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Other
>     (IAB/IESG/IRTF/IETF) Workshop Report
>     Business Report
>     Other; Uncategorized.
>
>     The Informational group is the least homogeneous of any of the
>     publication categories, and possible the one least understood by the
>     non-IETF crowd as to its role.  Perhaps providing some sub-text might
>     improve things slightly.
>
>     This is a discussion topic - not so much a baked proposal.
>
>     Enjoy - Mike
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rfc-interest mailing list
>     rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

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