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

Hi Heather,

I was thinking about something along the lines of the DOWNREF registry the IESG uses now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

spt

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 08:29, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 