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

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Fri, 28 February 2020 06:23 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:23:30 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2002210838240.88568@ary.local>
References: <57ce444e-4ee9-26c5-9e76-ae6906e69159@gmail.com> <52BA75DF-6D58-4BF1-953F-1911F301DB20@encrypted.net> <8f3e62b9-03ff-9fc2-bef9-a341ce7ca897@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBm7dH05mks2mREWO+n4A+f_m=MBC6pEicp=VVrmg6VKA@mail.gmail.com> <4e426227-a7b6-b4d0-8333-aa92d679f03b@mozilla.com> <1d6af0d5-a2c2-b239-43fd-7c937f06ccb2@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2002210838240.88568@ary.local>
Message-ID: <165f02c8-3573-9454-ed98-efd7d3764d0f@gmx.de>

On 21.02.2020 17:40, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> This is a question ultimately about the formats in the RFC series, not
>>>> the IPR conditions under which they are licensed.
>>> Yes. Specifically, a concern that we could end up with documents in
>>> multiple (de-facto) formats.
> Right, with the question being whether to go back and fix the coding
> (not the text) or explicitly decide to live with it.
> It's not totally clear to me who makes the final decision here.? IAB?
> IETF consensus?
> ...

FWIW, the fact that *you* do not know the answer is kind of scary.

It's now something like 9 months since I tried to draw attention to the
current mess, and there seems absolutely no measurable progress on this
issue since -- other than this mail thread that at least admits that
there will likely be changes needed (a good first step, but nothing more
than that).

It would be really great to know, what the plan is, or, alternatively,
what the target date for *having* a plan is.

Best regards, Julian