Re: [rfc-i] Informational...

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 20:02 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 E8DEE3A0ADA; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:02:00 -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 dZ1vyokO8Aiw; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:59 -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 67B3B3A0AD6; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51700F40718; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:32 -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 85E18F40718 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:31 -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 nh6Za-0oFLc6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52AEDF4070D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id ec10so3224716qvb.5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:53 -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=ZYop+3iPWfry0H2JeicTRnxmVnyezU+Omj5WIFVKrto=; b=mmhcqfRnm5CBq/1nWrHTM9Vw6z28wQUkQ3/r5571wrvjFOVQTubifj0VmV2OdWfVaS LVjpKxZ4Qk4riblnd2D+QcSP8gj4JJk882hbDBHKzvyGD7Gbz2UZejQcAR0CyW7RhPSL hyq3S3Vaiv603FsqmP8/6OZbgC0dKO3M0ef8oHIrd9ky46O1oapwDjfqhfd/KwDSg753 6SwbfDWW3tNHt1zH7fPbwZRSZzmA9TaHlfX0fac7DuLyZEFdg47mRHyWN1K7BAwE6pkZ h2G1ImPXhMhQznVUXvpevMgq55iZNbTszsV8fiQzGsWrLuZ03sy8W/VRaP1Wvm9v3GME p9oA==
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=ZYop+3iPWfry0H2JeicTRnxmVnyezU+Omj5WIFVKrto=; b=nWbRVVH4qhJTXjYfy4xZInNcUlQZxpz9YhYwP/asa7aA76vNORsivZw1TtdX6AwIEa FvrBMiOSE8OJX8gcebc1n69252IitDeFjStjT911fB2d1+l6X3VWX5MXNG0k32T2R3XO NTGxc3D043tdNJNhHlTjjE2rfiBQwSC/8gX/CqsEO336WLJWWA6PU35rp6r6SSCAhGWk JhDxyQ1ZzZd11zK0UelQEmu8c8+jmQkxOEOKAOHMlw1jRu8Qcs/Q3mQ1icdaqAPpTHEb LJsj2/VLg01tsllopGTiNxa32uTdb16k7XqPrsMPo+v377yr82POM/jDzYVeBgKPXOUC p4Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306fAHfGBvMn+unCEa3hkfV055U1XGxkn7HSk08c/p8vKo1qGhO V2yRBUiJJr0mMGhWxbA6Ku2ILQev8wA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9gxl7GEXwAly6Fq4W/enDRfSF7oKHqIfu2uKPwhf8jjPZJAIKIEYDpneM6njZvc2gTEm1Tw==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4309:: with SMTP id c9mr9516148qvs.50.1591905712195; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:52 -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 v189sm2952607qkb.64.2020.06.11.13.01.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:01:51 -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> <c55c0b9d-dc92-4410-a6ec-489a52db0179@nthpermutation.com> <CAA=duU3xkwbJHHEu+Uwp173Ayepx+q4xzd-WOH1x0QyVBKUvfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Message-ID: <29c6e905-799d-703e-cb81-de0800f684dc@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:01:51 -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=duU3xkwbJHHEu+Uwp173Ayepx+q4xzd-WOH1x0QyVBKUvfQ@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="===============8306009235488045404=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 6/11/2020 3:08 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Mike,
>
> That sounds good, or, if you want to be more wordy, "any RFC published 
> by an IETF Working Group that is not a standards-track or Experimental 
> specification."
>
I was looking for a short item that could be part of an RFC header and 
ideally usable as a filter term for searching.

Later, Mike



> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:14 PM Michael StJohns 
> <msj@nthpermutation.com <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
>
>     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