Re: [BOFChairs] Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall

Hi all,

I think it’s a very good idea to note this kind of information in the reference, and one easily implemented by using the <annotation> field. That would put the paywall warning immediately after the URL in the reference. [1]

In general, I have a strong preference towards open standards, but understand that’s just not possible/practical in all cases. I’m sure the IETF will sort out how to at least get free access for IETF authors, editors, and reviewers, during the drafting stage for an I-D, while the RFC Editor can help make it clear where there is a blocker to more general access to a document.

-Heather

[1] Purely as an example; this doc is actually not paywalled:

[BUFFERBLOAT] Gettys, J. And K. Nichols, “Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the Internet”, DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893, ACM Queue, Volume 9, Issue 11, November 2011, <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893 <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893>>. (At the time of writing, this resource has restricted access.)

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 ... something in the reference itself should indicate that the document (at time of writing) has restricted access.
> 
> That would also help all those involved and put less requirements on shepherds to confirm if all external references are publicly available (that might require disconnecting from a corporate vpn or not being on a corporate net to determine).
> 
> - Bernie
> 
>> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> IMO it would be better if the citation explicitly indicated that this document has a pay wall or limited access.
>> 
>>   Thanks,
>>   Paul
>> 
>>> On 6/12/19 6:00 PM, 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BOFChairs mailing list
> BOFChairs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bofchairs