Hi Phil, On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:09 AM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:18 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > There was a suggestion recently to not serve I-Ds from ietf.org domains until they were adopted by the IETF. Do you think serving individual drafts from another domain would help make that distinction clearer? >> >> I do not think it would be worth the effort to do this. And it would probably inconvenience people who already participate and whose fingers are already permanently "trained." >> >> > There was also a suggestion to add something to the boilerplate text of individual I-Ds along the lines of "anyone can submit an I-D; they have no formal standing until they are adopted by a group in the IETF or IRTF". Would that provide additional clarification? >> >> Oh yes, PLEASE! > > > +1 > > > If we do this, we should also explicitly say that a document has been adopted and by what group in which organization. Probably on the same line that says where to discuss it > > "This draft has been adopted by the IETF FOO working group, comments on the foo@xxxxxxxx list" > "This draft has been adopted by the IRTF BAR working group, comments on the bar@xxxxxxxx list" > "This draft has been adopted by the PHB foundation XYZ working group, comments on the xyz@xxxxxxxx list" > > Why would PHB foundation use an IETF list? Same reason as to publish as an Internet Draft, to be under Note Well. Authors of a draft can say whatever they want in the body of the draft about what organizations have adopted / endorsed / implemented / tested /whatever the draft but the required boilerplate for IETF stream documents should not say any such thing about non-IETF entities, the required boilerplate in IRTF stream documents should not say any such thing about non-IRT entities, etc. > If we go this route, we really need to have a final status for documents that is not an RFC. For better or worse, every RFC comes with the imprimatur of the IETF whether IETF wants to acknowledge that or not. That status is Expired Draft. The problem of different types of RFCs being conflated is a long standing problem that has been discussed many times before with no consensus about how to rectify it or whether it is necessary to rectify it. I see no reason to conflate that problem with the question of draft file naming and draft boilerplate. Start a different thread with a different subject if you want to get into that rat hole. > Does the IETF really want the PHB foundation issuing RFCs? I think not. Does the IETF want to have a place where permanent records can be published of file formats etc that are referenced in specs? I think so. The PHB foundation has no power to issue RFCs. However, PHB foundation standards that meet fairly minimal standards can be published as Informational RFCs. > The current situation in which there are WG RFCs and AD sponsored RFCs and individual submissions is wide open to abuse and has been abused. So you think things should not be as "wide open"? That is, things should be more closed off, restrictive, and difficult? > Some folk have made a career out of knowing how to get an RFC published without having the faff of going through IETF process. I do not believe anyone has made a career of that. > IETF and IRTF drafts should definitely expire after a fixed interval and maybe 6 months is if anything too long. I can't ever remember having a WG draft come close to expiring on me. Not once. They do expire and I think the current six months is about right. > I suggest a NOTE series that is simply a terminal state for Internet Drafts that are never intended to become RFCs but represent fixed static outputs. NOTEs would only be allowed to be INFORMATIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL. And the boilerplate would state 'This is not the result of a consensus process'. Sounds like you are simply re-inventing Independent Submission RFCs (which are only allowed to be INFORMATIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL). Except, I guess, you don't want there to be any Editorial or Technical review. Well, I don't think the IETF should publish any permanent documents without such review. > One of the things I would use NOTEs for is to document certain file format arcana which is not otherwise available. If some file format is actually part of a standard, like the DNS Master File format, or part of an I* process, like the various RFC XML formats, then it should be in an RFC. If some file format just comes from some particular open source or proprietary application, then it can be documented in an INFORMATIONAL RFC but in most cases I don't think it should have any special IETF status. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
