Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on www.ietf.org])

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 23 September 2020 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EFC3A12D3 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WmrsUQYQGbT0 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F5683A12BB for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-0069.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0069.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BxPP61yj6zyTd; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 18:52:42 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <C85492E1-C224-4084-BD05-D55FF5F43213@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 18:52:41 +0200
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 622572761.447301-d261fb5c9965ab9eef8242e60486d723
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <08717EDD-178D-48B8-B3D4-4EEC40891C6E@tzi.org>
References: <7E8E3DB8-CE41-44B3-9F8C-8854A4A1D333@tzi.org> <C85492E1-C224-4084-BD05-D55FF5F43213@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/AJ3Xj28_CTf6D-WOzHLV77PJ6YA>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on www.ietf.org])
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:52:48 -0000

> Drafts are drafts unless they’re not. 

We have learned for a few decades that there are multiple perspectives on that, none of which can be ignored.  A patent lawyer has a different perspective than a software archeologist (a.k.a. implementer) than a standards developer.

> Drafts expire unless they don’t. 

Again, there are different perspectives.
Saying your’s is the only one we should care about because that is how we SHOULD work, while we DO work differently, is the classic case of process confabulation.

Having labels 

> Treating them as artifacts in need of a stable reference means they’re not drafts anymore. They’re just versions. 

They are versions of drafts!

> So assign RFC numbers when they’re initially submitted and allow rev numbers or don’t. 

Nonsense.  The label “RFC” is meaningful and should only be used for documents that are no longer “drafts”.

> But if they’re not drafts, again we should just publish them to arXiv and skip all the irrelevant IETF mechanism. 

Nonsense.  The IETF process is useful in producing labels such as “RFC”, “Standards Track”, “obsoletes”, “Updates”, etc.

What’s the point of drawing these strawmen?

Grüße, Carsten