[saag] Re: [rfc-i] Re: RFCs vs Standards

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11-Dec-24 09:28, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2024-12-10, at 21:07, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> • Internet-drafts are obviously "permanent and readily available", I don’t see why that is debated. For registries wanting RFCs there is “RFC required”. I am against any registry saying that "permanent and readily available" internet-drafts are NOT OK, but pointing to a website outside of the IETF is…
>>
>> On 12/10/24, 2:49 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> This.
>>> There really can’t be any discussion on the facts here.
>>
>> Except that the boilerplate in every internet draft says "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress'" and some people have a problem with using a work in progress as the defining reference for an IANA registry. I think the solution to that is to fix the boilerplate somehow.
> 
> The boilerplate has indeed been “inappropriate” for a long time.
> But that is more or less a religious discussion, not one about facts on the ground.
> I wouldn’t mind if we fixed the text to better reflect its intention (= outcome now desired given we are no longer in the state that made the original wording attractive), but we don’t need to complete the (likely lengthy) process before acknowledging the above reality.

But there's a gross discrepancy there with the words in RFC 2026, and the current boilerplate corresponds to RFC 2026. If we want to acknowledge current reality, we need to update our main process document. I think this matters because it potentially interacts with prior art issues. As Scott Bradner has pointed out, archived I-Ds are commonly cited in court as prior art, so if we want to tweak the formal text, it needs to be done with legal advice as well as IETF consensus.

So, we really need to pick up draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry. The longer we let this issue drift, the more often we'll have this discussion.

    Brian


> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]