Re: Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Fri, 14 June 2019 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8969012008A for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 p4EWs5f9jPzK for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AA29120073 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc2c.google.com with SMTP id k125so509792ywe.5 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lF42NHNPGM1or5Gun1aOE28d0U+ygt4HhpGPjJ2gw5s=; b=XXRRjwPWylSn7YtsX+O8kHjD85399zYa0VG3SefzDUrw93IymHGiBEnNmRkVCpgHVi FoY0x3UMUQfaq48ZY/ptpCJirsZRT78hR/+xWUqTan9pePwxAokNOmxnblQc/E4KxMGl AOg/R08oiHqRy2ds+kCeLaR1Sv2SxXiztkYyfJOX1NNmswGYW/xv08NfqLox4pMBf0A1 nyiZdXZ38hIw+s19dw9grPnGVoW57z5jh1aeJ2KelsXLoZXgu6HRpt5ihaETaysBHpeG CnFey1ii0IeNtbAXxKZYzUQu4c+5b1y00MgcEvz+m8JnTooq2pEU0L2/UHgO4MaZOsep 5HZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lF42NHNPGM1or5Gun1aOE28d0U+ygt4HhpGPjJ2gw5s=; b=QrewSXJ58enl1UQcEZpQGWfI137Lk3AyPVj9HFHzpWJKhK6ogGLMInA+UJGfJ/GOHl QlLbm096LElhOn19Pqjx2goSY+KrS1o9GcimmiuxRjygeVBVLOd9/r7uV0bjAjQj2O6P drm7hNNOou7c1U6N84VIr7UQgcFvA9dr1aYBco6R0xfejb5RriLUXvYEygBDI8GMV9cq KOtL1stRakxaE1/OJDJ1SNkzfveE9c3qNpdILa+gu3wTjvVMaOBNi1ntmWzQuhofNi7W lLmIL9ZWtNfVrdrOAqVxQddUvjC/tgmGPcEj7jg16s2d99aqSPzUDG6NkikJ9SPx9U64 Ftrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVkPR05lMecciVASM8YLgC5mLc91M+94EB8Gzs9IXf0KVzWbqTo 9LjDtI1nST4mkwQwTeGHoPxCAbLA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz/X9XeuA68PgPX1zI+Tq1zcuO2pKOpm60VGbd6DQPqsp7HKhsYbGTk6grl3a5j4u4x7X1EAw==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:480f:: with SMTP id v15mr35389455ywa.144.1560484847529; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.15] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l14sm481328ywb.59.2019.06.13.21.00.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <004f01d52179$6cd49c10$467dd430$@gondrom.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:45 -0400
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE7F205C-521C-4C91-8342-AC463B781B35@gmail.com>
References: <7A67EAB1-08D4-4901-8A43-0563C64EBA1B@gmail.com> <004f01d52179$6cd49c10$467dd430$@gondrom.org>
To: tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/Qc373fVmV-FRP-8fflZzDowSWhw>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:00:51 -0000

Hi Tobias,
  RFC2026 Section 7 has quite a bit of text on incorporating external standards and specifications and we are not trying to modify that. Section 7.1.2. in particular has the following text that is related (but exactly) to the point you are making.

   The IESG generally should not favor a particular proprietary
   specification over technically equivalent and competing
   specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification
   "required" or "recommended".

Thanks
Suresh

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 7:49 PM, tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org wrote:
> 
> Even though it should be obvious, but should we add a line to the text along
> this: 
> 
> "All references SHOULD be generally available." 
> 
> Or  "All references SHOULD NOT be restricted to certain groups (for
> instance, subscribers or limited groups only be accessible after paying a
> fee). "
> 
> Best regards, Tobias
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs <wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:00 AM
> To: wgchairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall
> 
> 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
>