Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 188, Issue 3

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Fri, 12 June 2020 22:22 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 localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E491E3A14EA; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 qoFQ4pkoErdw; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:45 -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 6623E3A14E7; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B837F40741; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:17 -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 096E1F40741 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:16 -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=gmail.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 K-zZmLS2aWEI for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2644F4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id c185so10546669qke.7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=koRh1sk0m7QplqslOrPWLJJFaOZmgyWBllBa1PnRNQY=; b=czFs5D7y6rywR4XB7Q6W8ZKzyfpjn928IlkBoxz4lPeOg1chsw4LUyd05AiC/Jwr5h w1R2T/N7iGPTO6CEYBglvnhH1y8k1Ifhu4FPuB5D1NcYyCl3+jcMy94fS649S1gHVATl 0ucApnN8OmEpD4ECdAFeBRCjAPzOryEkb23BNXe3Qel/XQdBsD8PDOb6snPD1zKWgqh1 kZNd2inP+TKyJ9hdEjidUjKpneNSzs6TCzIrYA/ts64tEsNHNVBAeVtgYEkhQnkjNOLX 3zArgNTq3gynTuZhHhGLMiHSY9jxxGIhxcNxxMjIAIxUMl7x8NZLg+8A/cbv8/aqM2db IO3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=koRh1sk0m7QplqslOrPWLJJFaOZmgyWBllBa1PnRNQY=; b=FZsQIW4YCuly39Qa1zATpMMInwYZPhCMx2tcO88w2yIX9yC+G/DmXuj6NeEjaaETMG y8G7fCkeBrpwE+RXn8JDMNJt02haPt0C3+nOrF6NyFW/IS/dZ/4EGM3mrNTNgyk2+l6a yfj7MkgpDTLROuDJU/bE+V3CIW2Ma2nX3NLss1y7SwQdsAWQxh2+Z0EFzSVMy329uC9I M+GhGTFd3jtFBtx76HNLb23E6n5cJ2TIoDgJ7M2L7XD/ElCzY6ZTK8nVkuGILPe8KpYx OjURUriujUKPlDnXFVWaN4tyNWz1/9YM/+pPyttCkt18JeUcUBputbMZRKNi/vgVpOQn IncQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531x0FEkoBWRypYsW5+4CShEwzdBMgaNtDpbw/U2/Jxz0L1kAgfm L9XCx3PmyshTag7Am5Y8jC/e0oSIpNVkrkNpNmg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxO+GlmzrteljA+X6Ea108wAgBn691+v9TmGOmGdTvP7CBx3AXGNEpFpX3dE6tCW7AMPcDd6i7mFf4UUkLwk1M=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:784:: with SMTP id 126mr5083431qkh.200.1592000557875; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.547.1591905854.2401.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <15A50C069BA29A505C13B059@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <15A50C069BA29A505C13B059@PSB>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 18:22:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1y4EjQTqOvG7DhVtnH07gTov7KG2g08v7JGx7evMHpWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 188, Issue 3
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="===============2166326392563914497=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

John,

Sure, sounds good. I think Mike would appreciate a proposed Informational
taxonomy.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 8:52 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, June 11, 2020 15:08:06 -0400
>  "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> 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."
>
> Andy,
>
> (I knew I should continue to stay away from this list)
>
> Anything along the lines of "anything that is not one of those
> is one of these" is looking for trouble.
>
> First, while we have lumped BCP documents in with standards
> track for many purposes in the last several years, RFC 2026 is
> extremely clear that BCP documents are not standards track ones.
> Second, while it it isn't clear to me just how we would go about
> doing it if we wanted to (perhaps an opportunity for another
> long "who has the authority" thread in rfc-future), one could
> imagine another full, numbered, category along the lines of the
> last "FYI" series or perhaps similar to the ISO technical report
> category (IIR, "Type 3"0 which was popularly known as a
> "substandard".
>
> While I see these Informational subcategories as a good idea, I
> think it would be equally, or more, useful to break BCP up (or,
> I suppose, create subcategories) to distinguish between IETF
> procedural documents and documents about practices on the
> Internet and the use of protocols.  It might even be useful to
> further divide the latter between descriptions of deployed
> configurations, operational practices, etc., that have worked
> out well (after all, "Current Practices") and more aspirational
> IETF recommendations about what people should be doing (with or
> without advice about what happens if they don't).  Most of the
> latter, of course, should probably be seen as Applicability
> Statements and hence actually standards track.
>
> best,
>    john
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> 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