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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02-Apr-22 02:27, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Rich
> 
> The piece that's still confusing in the reference to BCP 9 is whether and where the original text from RFC 2026 that is still currently quoted on the IETF site was amended. Removing from the latest online version is not the same thing as if it was never there. People looking that text up on the internet have a good chance to find one of the TAO RFCs and live with it, or get stuck like I am searching through BCP 9, none of which particularly satisfying.
> 
> The trouble: since RFC 2026, a lot happened in https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9. I tried to find if the text was amended somewhere but got lost.

The answer is no, that text is still valid. Of course we can't control what third parties do, which is why the text of every I-D states that it is work in progress. Fair warning to all readers.

As we know, *significant* changes can occur in a standards-track I-D up to and even beyond the announcement of IESG approval. (Beyond, in the form of a note to the RFC Editor from the IESG, and very rarely if a significant error is found at AUTH48.) So it is truly never completely safe to make a normative reference before the RFC is out. It's IMHO a matter of judgment for the relying party at what point they consider it safe enough - IESG approval, for example - but it's our responsibility to tell the truth, which is that I-Ds are always work in progress.

  
> This is a situation where our own "update" work becomes quite opaque till we finally "obsolete" to retrofit. The IEEE has an interesting maintenance practice for that.

The IETF has been repeatedly resistant to a full revision of BCP9. I tried and failed. It would consume a great deal of energy that might be better spent on technical work.
  
> So no, I do not think that removing is enough. Since the quote was there, we probably have to maintain an up-to-date state there too.

We agree on that.

     Brian

> 
> Keep safe;
> 
> Pascal
> 	
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: mardi 29 mars 2022 23:48
>> To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>om>; Brian E Carpenter
>> <[e-mail]>om>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <[e-mail]>om>; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>om>; Joel Halpern Direct
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] 3rd party SDO cross-referencing of IETF work (was: Re:
>> Chair/datatracker tracking expired WG documents ?)
>>
>>>     These couple of sentences in the Tao are actually from RFC2026 and about
>> the transient state of I-Ds.
>>
>> In fact, the current version of the Tao (maintained at
>> https://github.com/ietf/tao) doesn't have that language, but instead just
>> points to BCP 9. Phrases like "work in progress" are also removed, pointing
>> to BCP 9.
>>
>> We only just finished editing/merging before IETF 113, and there wasn't time
>> to update the website.  Please take a look at the GitHub repo and see if the
>> language there needs to be fixed.
>>
>> I think Valery's point got lost :(
>>
>