Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 21 February 2020 00:45 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 9225D1207FE for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.498 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=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 (message 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 L51xiFRzNclv for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:24 -0800 (PST)
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 DC18512081F for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171CEF40714; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:19 -0800 (PST)
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 C0E15F40714 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:17 -0800 (PST)
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 56GWsQacYihS for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32e.google.com (mail-ot1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDE2F40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id 77so524756oty.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:20 -0800 (PST)
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=wFU0QORIy+fHUnFb0zyyzkxvDzby4jd2BGXkmEdDlyo=; b=vKQoz4o5e2lM0SEGxM3r8HPCLTJaHwiYv4oZHwEl2xvQHWKgUgcrVyiaM5ULQETOnq H/B7hupPYDlnvBblebg5QqruV1OOcR18CApTtHVdIcB9FTA9vdEfg55YhnB77vtEjg08 ct3WoeUyMtDW6PVgHZBvA4BPisaho2quaI3EGKjfH7xC9w9h9ZjOkn3z2p8X4W1cQpxT CzTpf08dnY2fEmO6avMvjPDrDi6+UQoojT5+f070zCUSGLqkV9bBrIJYLPaOFIXVmAiB pFaVuhnSmME9HHMfwG21jkAq+tzqkO247mPTMYMxN3OdmppXd0d8Eh+rSl8hKU1wsQBf vsvA==
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=wFU0QORIy+fHUnFb0zyyzkxvDzby4jd2BGXkmEdDlyo=; b=oOKQYn5uEfYM0DgkKy9M+iQfZEvKk7qDVhhVntTs6DNmxjQ6xMFWPbLRQFxCmalsq6 ZKf4n7JHHD5XW8M+m79jX7MftX/JrwsiY7VgBoFRubzHglGicmpey72BemdFeG0ABGv1 xznqczb3fngF27WpzQksiOw40eBl/K3+nZuQJVeTewpb0S4/AFJSeI+cEQDNHEhfGdXb 2KiIfrDcjmDq7Xg9j2DjHWqgoAcwOs9azftd0K6trgR/qfT+/dkDuZhdGGapJeju80PF JrTKY2/ta2dXSdx4uDcTWJAHrl0hpc3N3xKGINJcqrpa0Tpb1KwDJuSy7L2l+pVaeGDz WOlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUonZKAPZ/ftiLxCkAvONNELMTWsgqJxD/7wWvIoGzkxgRiqil7 S91hxQzdpH/5o6CCx/+A0yvG1953qCJQKnoYK0s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5D+vd/ojWjCr7rzWE79dBPxEKEjfJkoHwQnGc+sUvWvaPo9WUcaw6d5u3KHkFj4rQrfk7QaWmrCPoSJzD6Lc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1615:: with SMTP id g21mr26890598otr.49.1582245919283; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:45:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <57ce444e-4ee9-26c5-9e76-ae6906e69159@gmail.com> <52BA75DF-6D58-4BF1-953F-1911F301DB20@encrypted.net> <8f3e62b9-03ff-9fc2-bef9-a341ce7ca897@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f3e62b9-03ff-9fc2-bef9-a341ce7ca897@gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:44:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBm7dH05mks2mREWO+n4A+f_m=MBC6pEicp=VVrmg6VKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
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: RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2946608652847716661=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:34 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, Sarah, I am simply incapable of understanding where this fits
> into "oversight".


Please re-review the initial message, especially this bit:

It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs will be
> an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish the
> affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe
> it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this
> information with the broader community for discussion.
>

The RSOC is not making a decision here, it is ensuring that the community
knows the topic needs discussion.


> If it's anybody's problem operationally, it's John Levine's; and if there
> is a strategic concern it presumably belongs to the IETF Trust, which owns
> the IPR and therefore needs to be concerned about the long-term integrity
> of documents.
>

The IAB has published the format documents historically, not the trust.
This is a question ultimately about the formats in the RFC series, not the
IPR conditions under which they are licensed.

best regards,

Ted Hardie


>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 20-Feb-20 12:58, Sarah Banks wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >    It’s coming from the RSOC because we do not currently have an RSE. We
> currently do not have an acting RSE. We have a person in situ doing his
> finest to hold down tactical items while the community figures out the RSE
> business. Because this item felt like it couldn’t be simply shelved until
> there is an RSE the RSOC, including the temp PM, decided to share this note
> in the spirit of transparency. It’s not a new discussion in the RSOC,
> simply a byproduct of the desire to share info.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sarah
> >
> >> On Feb 13, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sarah,
> >>
> >> This is not about the technical aspect of your message.
> >>
> >> Can you clarify why this is RSOC business? I don't understand where it
> fits in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-3.1. I would have
> expected any proposals to come from the (acting) RSE.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >>> On 14-Feb-20 08:10, Sarah Banks wrote:
> >>> Hello IAB and RFC-interest community,
> >>>
> >>>    The RSOC has been following discussion of the issues encountered in
> deploying the v3 RFC format. These issues have necessitated several changes
> to the format as bugs and ambiguities are found. While we believe that this
> is necessary, we have a concern that the incremental nature of these
> changes will result in will result in RFCs published in more than one XML
> format over time, as the adjustments are made.
> >>>
> >>>    The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is currently investigating
> how many of the already-executed as well as anticipated changes might
> result in backwards-incompatible changes to the format, to get a better
> sense of scale.
> >>>
> >>>    It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs
> will be an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish
> the affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe
> it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this
> information with the broader community for discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Sarah
> >>> For the RSOC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest