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

Joseph Touch <> Wed, 23 September 2020 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C2B3A12E0 for <>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id abuVLW_J_BmU for <>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B93563A12D8 for <>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0Ytmt+AJedUM/wKUWYP3+of3o/SA/3knIJzi7YR3xUI=; b=H05yNjnjYO8ME6oIqL7TiOPgf OemQ+YCYYHCtNVxrt5UE2HVAAhchVcJzVU81iBVS03L8uYE4LllxjLnfsPJHR+3VmJhgpb7rlnTRw ZylMx40JUGtqF2SvhsY4mF2Sz+YxqG1+vXFzABM82ItSypUDPmQhABAjLmplj8ec/rcoxHcqEVfW8 L7f5gULr2IktCBm2MzpXBjypwTx8wFkTfqy3gC4TiGemjgufSeaal+sjLpnnFnAHxvrqzR+6CX+O1 BK3iaK4nl+gZnR928BlrI+NcNNz0pSF2s8OvWmeXArkJG9EPYEOCyBsq65Kyd8CzsGWneekh4/+73 /bLFa+q5Q==;
Received: from ([]:49509 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1kL87x-002y9K-12; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:00:25 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:00:20 -0700
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on])
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:00:27 -0000

> On Sep 23, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, but patent lawyers don’t necessarily need stable links; they need access to an archive, which they already have.

>> 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”.

By making links to drafts stable, the label RFC becomes less meaningful as a distinction. As you and Brian claim, then becomes “just a label”.

>> 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?

I am actually trying to figure out whether to post updates to pending drafts via a process that is increasingly diverging into its own, idiosyncratic full publication process or stop wasting my time and just go straight to arXiv.

You and Brian make a very strong case for the latter.