Re: Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Whilst this works, I am not sure why it is needed.

We have not needed this process in the last 30 years, why do we need it now?

- Stewart

On 12/06/2019 23:00, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi chairs,
>    In the past we have dealt with a few drafts that have had normative references to paywalled documents and we have dealt with them on a case-by-case basis (usually during or after IETF last call). In order to get the working groups involved earlier in the process, the IESG is working on issuing a statement on how to deal with such drafts and we would greatly appreciate input from WG chairs on this topic. This is the proposed text of the statement
> 
> *** START TEXT ***
> 
> As described in Section 7.1 of RFC 2026, RFCs may have normative
> references on external standards.
> 
> In some cases, however, those references are themselves not generally
> available (for instance, they might be accessible only after paying
> a fee). This can interfere both with the ability of implementers
> to implement the protocol as well as with the ability of the IETF
> community to review it.
> 
> In such cases:
> 
> 1. The WG MUST be explicitly informed of any such normative reference
>   and the WG MUST reach consensus that it is acceptable. The
>   document shepherd MUST include this information in the shepherd
>   writeup.
> 
> 2. The reference MUST be explicitly noted as part of the IETF Last
>   Call. If such a note is omitted, the last call MUST be repeated
>   after including it.
> 
> *** END TEXT ***
> 
> Please go over this text and let me know if you have any concerns, comments, or additions by 2019/06/26.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
>