IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] Another RFC experiment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 01 July 2018 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2620130E07 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LEnI0SNg4lzZ for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (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 37A69124D68 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id h20-v6so4627445pfn.4 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gjfp3uc0i2CaUy5pI7hYdpvDJmw6AMfEBwObdr2wpHI=; b=s0caRJZ6PdKzSdyHzDhHfiX9gImf9vtaAZzL7V7stQxWb6KvgPGQxLpnTnoNmHoofO 08/KJpCPUk/wIoCjXNfhInd3xsPyUat7crFqVW9ymIyAFgVpwFn8mGYlDHg83H8TV7ZA M5r5YESZbbNR0UlCIOnv9icRzALCTehqpuXdCDSfEnNrblBNtkGMt4fqSloBYl4bgJ3B oy3z1ZwyeOWnS0luJy9QBtOX+qIIMctrn36R8tAdvpfpv/Omv23NNVo7KoZ0FI/5jrGs V7cNfwcN7hLCzdULwmeNI74njDzfyyr1pOYTfotZRhiqSB1vuwlZ9IcPDofSVxYfXp9T brnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gjfp3uc0i2CaUy5pI7hYdpvDJmw6AMfEBwObdr2wpHI=; b=be2ivKBPRnLjrPb4M7crsaKEdrmGNT5n9Rj5hAnaKxdO7tXGuEUFHo63wk7JMbYSp+ 2PWVv+V+GubDQEj/GP9cBclPzcEx6af49flSss62lSVUXK8G+p8F0nYTpNqlNOHaxGv2 PBNwBATLVnvxCdysRovnweBJ1EvPvYkDHLJ94uuNXuMGhmFb5aEV2PrxDUi8oTsl8DeA JflpPds+9Aq4euzyoy1E9ZvTBsioKHxJSkBK9KEgMiRitsgjhxBxagpKRt7yuxbXkj6F skTxp7AdUJ9Tumyqyy/pXpT9H9YkKq/yxTHNO17Yxo3xoyOzDUQ66OvhSyXO1LOd3fI/ A2oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E12H5asFD0lLVgoBys80x4pYb1JiAbnBiX2FLMI7QtkCemd1Tte YFGROj/ZVWItC/AEcj2QrTRcCw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdwY29WNdpMiqfQd9N5kHYdMl2CUspIqhH2k2RPwsDobKa+639P0Tw8rShf5OOG9vGsmbOuZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:3f44:: with SMTP id m65-v6mr15318192pfa.98.1530483873035; Sun, 01 Jul 2018 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.38] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m10-v6sm22359593pgq.89.2018.07.01.15.24.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Jul 2018 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180701101957.0b324b80@elandnews.com> <20180701181929.GB22125@kduck.kaduk.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5e4bc5f6-d5f8-3077-1302-26c48bef5e32@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 10:24:27 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180701181929.GB22125@kduck.kaduk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/M9usZK_d0qC-SrwM-uBFLEtAZfI>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Another RFC experiment
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 22:24:36 -0000

On 02/07/2018 06:19, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:57:58AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I searched for information about the RFC++ BoF and came across the 
>> "About" information for this mailing list.  Who are the BoF proponents?
> 
> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart is pretty clear about
> this.  (Martin Thomson and Melinda Shore)
> 
>> The proposed experiment reminded me of RFC 6393.  Nobody within the 
>> IETF was enthusiastic to do the "clean up" after that experiment.  If 
> 
> Sorry, I don't know what you intend to mean when you say the "clean up" for
> that experiment.

The clean-up is well described at
https://www.ietf.org/old/2009/u/iesgcontent/ions.html

Actually I think the IESG did a fairly good job of the clean-up in
that case, because the experiment was structured non-destructively,
i.e. it *added* a new document series that could be abolished quite
harmlessly. That is not true of the so-called experiment proposed
in the BOF description.

>> I understood correctly, the purpose of the proposed RFC experiment is 
>> to correct the misconception that all RFCs are standards by reserving 
>> "RFC" for standards-related documents.  What is the meaning of 
>> "standards-related"?  Does it mean documents in the IETF 
>> Stream?  Does it include the "Informational" and "Experimental" 
>> documents in the IETF Stream?
> 
> This is covered in RFC 7841. (BCP, proposed standard, internet standard)

The alleged problem and the proposed experiment are not described in a
draft, unless I've missed something. The suggested reading doesn't include
even the recent drafts that seem relevant (still less older ones):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-std-numbers
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comments

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-3 seems relevant

   Brian

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status