IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Some more summary points

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Tue, 28 April 2020 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CCD3A076E for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) 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 MSha9UY04YlR for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E243A05E2 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id y6so550613pjc.4 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=qslfMQSBRFRsMNrTzsCrdbb7j0lLCWQP97ccWafRwxw=; b=vG234vwNmtIsa7TEQB1RSPV6u7NF4Ske47kqkWhRBADoYX7BH95BD84uazpBdYIyad rZDKCcFVCW6UZtCGaNeXBfYXIoJDNXi+FFd89MsxBEHDG5mpfa/1um04tHsBdsLngX/B V39erYwTx1PMCu1ilBT2o64sDPqOaUv3QqcWndsFR2KjvfT9L0vieU3aXtZL7N8b4oqd 5jaU/XkxwYM6cO9GCGKLnivqHZJkpW4OsiFRgXV3AztfGdz74wOw4FefJ+6ZfItS/LRJ lWAVuFDZQNBnzL37t2y5Axgolazph9KxqN+S5zrpOFdXX//Ag1eD6ke263s+sRDXNffS Qz6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=qslfMQSBRFRsMNrTzsCrdbb7j0lLCWQP97ccWafRwxw=; b=AHVHbHJfU3oD08p4Ja3mu2XAbEOF4KiidKnOsDGlZiOQ6julxuzSuU9vpQkR3+niCA ngVw9lOWO8JtTSciBfi6YzuK8d+zEtnPYJEDp5+akL7r6jQV8tC0sIaJJGmBzU4fITBE xYiwhRFbzL9wn/16bWRjdZ5R52xOawTL9PuYtO6AVSk/HejsmI6Nuo+i3t3jujqyLC9R fRPGAsBi3aBzhvsouwfS7WUZUGILXKbiBk5wO1efgVo7wKIiBs4/g0WPb8HHDMCjV58z c09CjXIAyZTsqwTS9nCk75oAJsCFGkCNnCqmG4RZNREYLQKF/PLj+DXykwp4rkaIaYft Jehg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubEaL/1qVnKQpQU+nkkweMt13GjmhTGeyRVD7aoXmOChl7Z1zYg 8wmG5HYVD4CbL3nTEl/6Q0U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI6/fSIAfZzo3pKV7BKP+wsDyg/TxlQ3viKi/0VCbmFFQd9rCjDH0EzW8Hzeii4ED1juBJNfw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bc8c:: with SMTP id bb12mr25215158plb.142.1588046581248; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y21sm6546209pge.42.2020.04.27.21.03.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, 'Nevil Brownlee' <nevil.brownlee@gmail.com>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@annevk.nl>
References: <CACOFP=h87-9CZy+baazrkPWpG8onq7wrzjwKNmZDVad0m6dSSg@mail.gmail.com> <EF5FA167-2B2C-4E1E-866B-153B2CF604FD@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF5FA167-2B2C-4E1E-866B-153B2CF604FD@vigilsec.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:03:00 -0700
Message-ID: <004701d61d11$e8b3b7f0$ba1b27d0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQCPFQktCcasiexzZ98NPzEUJDE9CQFyLufnqw/mHXA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/ZBbWzX_HfPznF0J1XnFgaRHeXKw>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Some more summary points
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 04:03:09 -0000

> > How could we get feedback from users of the RFC Series?

I think the "other SDOs" should  be a priority
for several additional reasons
*  There are areas of overlap where the entire suite of standards 
 used by any implementation cross multiple SDOs
* There are areas of overlap when there isn't clarity about scope
  and 'jurisdiction', and specs diverging further over time [1]
* There is the problems of  versioning and normative references
   between different series.
* They have similar audiences for specs and ideas
    for how to address them; we can compare notes.
 
For the web I'd ask W3C (process committee), WHATWG,
Maybe ECMA (for JavaScript), ISO, Unicode Consortium,
IEEE, others?

I'd suggest inviting a discussion through liaisons or directly.


--
https://LarryMasinter.net   https://going-remote.info 
*The particular case I have in mind is the divergence between
   RFC series specs and standards vs the URL "Living Standard".
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ruby-url-problem-01

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email