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

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=[e-mail]>]

Hello Joel 

You got the proposal wrong.

The proposal was:

ANY standard in or out IETF MAY reference non-normatively an I-D but MUST NOT reference them normatively. Non-IETF standards SHOULD register their use of I-Ds, be it to be informed if the draft becomes RFC so they can decide when and how to append their standard.

This seems fully compatible with your words below, so I see that we are in fact in agreement. Do I miss something?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Sent: vendredi 25 mars 2022 12:02
> To: 'Toerless Eckert' <[e-mail]>de>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: 3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re:
> Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)
> 
> You have missed the big problem.
> 
> There is a reason that having external standards normatively reference I-Ds
> is difficult / problematic.  (And I hav edone it even though it is against
> the rules.) There may well be significant, even incompatible changes between
> even a late stage I-D and an RFC.  An external reference relying on the I-D
> would be incorrect.  And it is not enough to just say "well they should write
> it so as to reference whatever the I-D becomes, since they would need to look
> at the changes to see if they were wanted.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/25/2022 6:48 AM, 'Toerless Eckert' wrote:
> > Added rfc-interest. Not sure this is ideal set of lists, but hopefully
> > better
> >
> > I think i have a proposal that would not only solve (i hope) what
> > Pascal is concerned about, but would also be (IMHO) very useful for the RFC
> series:
> >
> > How about we do crearte on datatracker a mechanism to officially
> > register a third-party reference to a particular IETF document. Draft or
> RFC.
> >
> > Everybody who writes an external document could create such a third-party
> reference.
> > We'd have to discuss access control if its abused.
> >
> > The one benefit (which i was interested in) would be that we would
> > finally start getting some inight if/where our documents are being
> > used elsewhere in the industry. Especially given how a lot of industry
> > bodies  work with closed documents, it is completely impossible to
> > just scrape the Internet to find uses (as its "kinda" done in the
> > research world). Especially now that we're trying to reach out to more
> > external SDO in IoT, Media operations or other industrial verticals,
> something like this would hopefully be timely.
> >
> > The other benefit would be that whoever creates the reference would
> > (automatically) get status updates about the document. So the foreign
> > SDO document editor or manager could use this to track the IETF reference
> and status.
> >
> > Depending on what we put into such "foreign reference" (to be filled
> > out when it's created/updated), we would likely be able to satisfy more
> work-flows.
> >
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:28:20AM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >> Along the same line (though a different problem that we'd need to fork as
> a separate thread) is our wording for IETF references.
> >> At the moment we indicate that external specs (think say IEEE) must not
> reference drafts. But when the draft stalls before RFC, this makes the
> reference completely unusable. Makes no sense to me, and hardly reflected in
> practice. A better practice would be how we eat our own dogfood, which is
> that a draft must not be a normative reference when standard X is published,
> whether by IETF or else.
> >>
> >> Interested in following that up too? If so please fork.
> >>
> >> Note: this can effectively hurt. Within the last year or 2, I faced that
> issue with both IEEE and ETSI. At ETSI it was mostly theoretical and we kinda
> forced our way to reference I-drafts arguing that the doc we are writing is
> not a standard. OTOH, at IEEE that was harder. We had text in 802.11md about
> the proxy ARP function and the fact that there's also IPv6 to care about.
> Incidentally, the text cited a draft in progress for the proxy ND operation
> (now RFC 8929) as an informational reference (all non-IEEE references are
> informational). At the last minute, the whole change was removed from .11md
> on the grounds that the I-D reference was not RFC, and the text was frozen
> for publication. At that time, the I-draft had been waiting for its turn in
> the RFC Editor queue for months. The RFC was pulled from the RFC editor queue
> and published within weeks after the freeze. I discovered the .11 removal
> only later, appealed, but the freeze is immutable.
> >>
> >> Keep safe;
> >>
> >> Pascal
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henk
> >>> Birkholz
> >>> Sent: vendredi 25 mars 2022 10:40
> >>> To: Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>et>; 'Toerless Eckert'
> >>> <[e-mail]>de>; 'Tools Team Discussion' <[e-mail]>rg>;
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?
> >>>
> >>> Coincidentally, I was expressing the expressing the exact same
> >>> sentiment in a side-discussion two days ago. I'd really appreciate
> >>> that feature, both as a chair and a contributor.
> >>>
> >>> On 25.03.22 09:04, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is there a way for datatracker on a WG's page to (automatically)
> >>>>> show
> >>> expired WG documents ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have one such draft in my WG and it wouldn't show up on the WG
> >>> page.
> >>>>> Of course, in general one may not want to bother about expired
> >>>>> drafts unless explicitly added, but for WG document IMHO, it would
> >>>>> be great if they would automatically show up in in the WG section
> >>>>> unless their status is maybe accordingly updated or the like
> >>>>
> >>>> I also think this feature would be useful, because now the expired
> >>>> WG document is not shown at all at the WG page and it's sometimes
> >>>> difficult to find it (you need to remember the name).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Valery.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>       Toerless
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest