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

Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 18 June 2019 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
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 A76FA12010D for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2iSaAWjPRn34 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E417312009C for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15FE1C41F1; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o1M2feU3DdAE; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.200.6.26] (natrange249.dhcp.tnc19.eenet.ee [109.105.115.249]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A0501C41E6; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 05:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: [BOFChairs] Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:29:47 +0300
References: <7A67EAB1-08D4-4901-8A43-0563C64EBA1B@gmail.com> <67530A86-3D5E-4559-8747-2DE8781362ED@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, wgchairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <67530A86-3D5E-4559-8747-2DE8781362ED@sn3rd.com>
Message-Id: <BDC9DD3C-5519-4B07-91DA-2AB2D25E1BDB@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/exePneUSLzWq9ZTTBDUUWOgP_mo>
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:29:53 -0000

Hi Sean,

Unless the tools are created to automatically check the references against this registry so the RFC Editor can automatically add the annotation to the reference, I would rather not have a registry that requires readers to either get unexpected blocked when trying to access the article or require them to go check a registry to see if access is expected to be denied. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re thinking wrt a registry?

-Heather

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> Just thinking down the road a bit … If more than one draft refers to the same document that is behind the paywall does the LC need to include the text again or can we do something like create a PAYWALLREF registry?
> 
> spt
> 
>> On Jun 12, 2019, at 18:00, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> 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