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 ?)

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Fri, 01 April 2022 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 9DC3A3A0EEB for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 10:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 WCxodSdZjf8m for <tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 10:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CCE93A1046 for <tao-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 10:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with ESMTP id 231HJL2Z019119; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 18:42:23 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Wk48ZAqcN9X+hzAyyTOqOPlOQfvs5l8Bfmaio2zyRoY=; b=EYfHGEv4ADvmtUIFKp185tf3s4GyQZuA7IvH/pO3ZhpcAgj1W18e1B6xWldhIYTabavU LfLnC3oFedCzjpjjPX7ExhSMA9frHecV6Pg1UB01jUfqZkBFCyeER0nIF7yfyRE+IUDp waznPCl/jDtV4D3rawALBYEeykVdd+xXGqCryHOL9lus+CPawjCsBzKVzvdCOwtDeYBp arZdWMC8xdVsgSySbmzqY7/MPf56YIuTDRoze5nG3ixCxoKmC2pIu0bOKvboHsfsuINp HnuBGrjnBxZ91DlX+WI3yDJt5tsYUaISn3QlPdEu3ojqgl/aHPGXu6CVzD6aT+jcVkMU 4w==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3f4sr8vd4r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 01 Apr 2022 18:42:23 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 231HZ59U018232; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 10:42:22 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3f20tbaped-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 01 Apr 2022 10:42:21 -0700
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag4mb7.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.91.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.986.5; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 13:42:21 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.32; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 13:42:21 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.033; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 13:42:21 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
CC: "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] 3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re: Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)
Thread-Index: AQHYQDfUComjlE9H+E610K9BjoBDp6zQUiMAgAAMqoCAAD3TAIAD8UkAgAEI34CAAYKIAP//04SAgARuWQD//8UAAIAARKCA///6bwA=
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 17:42:20 +0000
Message-ID: <F6CD4F4E-8DA1-471A-93F8-FC855C28B6A2@akamai.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB488164E21B70A0C67DEB788CD8E09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.59.22031300
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <55DD9ECF753E9042947C92D5F9400B07@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.850 definitions=2022-04-01_05:2022-03-30, 2022-04-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2204010084
X-Proofpoint-GUID: D1J-Dwkgg6f1UgMMU0QXmimdjYfZ-tnp
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: D1J-Dwkgg6f1UgMMU0QXmimdjYfZ-tnp
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.850,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-04-01_05,2022-03-31_01,2022-02-23_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2204010084
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/fiey8FIzoSC6ULP-fzZQPDTwaNs>
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 17:42:33 -0000

>   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.

What *did* change is that I removed those words from the Tao (proposed; has to be approved by the IESG) because I strongly felt they were too fine a level of detail for an overview document.  Some disagree with that.  In either case, however, the Tao is not the place to change IETF policy or practice.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email