IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tao-discuss] [rfc-i] 3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 01 April 2022 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724083A1941 for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ZySvx5jA3XJ1 for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (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 310DD3A1942 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id a16-20020a17090a6d9000b001c7d6c1bb13so3338550pjk.4 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lCBGjhCNE44mYuxYNETPYP2633GZYfm7nw1cycdWtvQ=; b=mWSCBJB4mFXaBT7oBik/xMnjWtXk35WKE/hsdkPiAOjPwxzfbs5uRWDSI3/oo+Dz2a b3UpmBKoTIxJlYNBO3fTzuliW8n+ZF+FP3H0MjPCxVXhc61wM/vhRh3gtP8x01ZSpwjD VEmFh8jzQnFecH6nYCmXsMFvqjdPn2+UCj8hcQ/Gcu5TArEzHizcAKxEsjy0vzYJkM0q YBr7lQQjc+QR5ixNioXvyIsOJor1BvNYSWHOZMzdRq0EEGYIBqzKwxbDqIbUWGMNorNx tC7GPIVBbdP4DkAALOlbpIpZkxBf2lg1kcrVYctxn/1WjO/VAToE9mRnsnLQjonPH5yG LHpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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=lCBGjhCNE44mYuxYNETPYP2633GZYfm7nw1cycdWtvQ=; b=jZDy83AuOns8GqfUtOxOo/NMJytJm/Uh5OgG63tZ9pp8ZPBwX5w4WsNBBCx1fBYKnf sy/QSrGModsA5KK/Q1cDxVvIoyOd6NrFCC9tQt05xKuD+mNbhU2MNn8WHno9u7tetBnf 8Z9MT89WaDzWtAKfYkc3ibY/VJaKCqn7GzHQxGmEDJmQ+5CkFUlzwOx9aPMWDN+ikPhF 7dIy29XgNlMxH1Gts9DNpm8asj4OAKvrVXppoX4UTu9hhRWOyiOHdrH/xMV5X4mqSUEp 4ZhV7RqPDtvT/GLkiqObgp+fZu5+Rno/+5mmU9e2g4LPjoJTtBrPRVIIcKulhf8W7cV2 nFAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vOwm90GrNxdVeUtwAfzNJhdwEsRZi5dIPzW376MWt0oVHcE92 kvS+kmN+nd7rgvAHDjztmqjs7u4gu+sYAw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxPEo6qNFzFnrz9OrY/PynsUIQwEi2xH7wwutdeXiT0pPXgEXUoDGjNwztb2IYZgZo6fLzUg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1b0f:b0:1c6:ed78:67ad with SMTP id nu15-20020a17090b1b0f00b001c6ed7867admr13360073pjb.41.1648839308103; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ip1-20020a17090b314100b001c7b10fe359sm14625375pjb.5.2022.04.01.11.55.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <Yj2d4DJMFWJOxoZa@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <317196df-3363-36c9-2421-02d9e229f664@joelhalpern.com> <CO1PR11MB488130CFF42A9F309AE1E212D81A9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <95b5dab0-3eb5-536d-85fc-d428f26364ed@joelhalpern.com> <CABcZeBOSMRffY6cXjwn7A6d=JWDJmmBrgHxiPD-XRMTMazOjLw@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB48812B0C5B88C190FB4A28ECD81D9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7042bc99-5d14-993c-198b-1080b4ff5636@gmail.com> <CH0PR02MB8291A7A9598871412C035882D61E9@CH0PR02MB8291.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <39A3A9C9-5EED-4E44-9695-6186C5A3F7AC@akamai.com> <CO1PR11MB488179A425A1E1BF98174CE6D8E09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <201561AA-D2A0-4ED2-AB9E-BEAA4B6162E2@akamai.com> <CO1PR11MB488164E21B70A0C67DEB788CD8E09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <F6CD4F4E-8DA1-471A-93F8-FC855C28B6A2@akamai.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <172f086c-664f-73c9-7e5f-5ecf3d374240@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2022 07:55:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F6CD4F4E-8DA1-471A-93F8-FC855C28B6A2@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/GQM0CEcy7NB4bPu4TUfjvYePd9U>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] [rfc-i] 3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)
X-BeenThere: tao-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Tao of the IETF <tao-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tao-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tao-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 18:55:14 -0000

On 02-Apr-22 06:42, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>    It is. I'm speaking from the bad side of the gun, trying to find what our current statement is for that "old" text and not finding whether it was obsoleted or not. If it was obsoleted, removing the quote is better than keeping it, so we would agree that your step is a good step. Is that the case?
> 
> After getting some off-list clarification from Pascal, the "old" text he is referring to is this:
>        An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
>        specifications are published through the RFC mechanism ...
>        Internet Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change
>        or removal at any time.  Under no circumstances should an Internet
>        Draft be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-Proposal,
>        nor should a vendor claim compliance with an Internet Draft.
> 
> This is still basically the boilerplate that is in every draft, and is still a part of BCP9. It has not changed.

Agreed.

> What *did* change is that I removed those words from the Tao (proposed; has to be approved by the IESG) 

Not without community review, surely?

> because I strongly felt they were too fine a level of detail for an overview document.  Some disagree with that.

Including me and, I think, Joel Halpern. IMHO this is *not* a detail and absolutely must be understood by all, especially newcomers.

>  In either case, however, the Tao is not the place to change IETF policy or practice.

Agreed.

    Brian

> 
> You can find a rendered copy of the proposed Tao at https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/tao-possible-revision/.
> The GitHub repository is at https://github.com/ietf/tao.
> I copied one person's email objection into https://github.com/ietf/tao/issues/44
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tao-discuss mailing list
> tao-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email