On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:41 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:36 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- The IESG has had multiple cases during my time there where we haven't had access to some normative reference, and so we can't do our job. This has added long delays to document processing. That's what we're trying to address here.
I believe it is far more common for the IESG to review and progress documents without having all normative references tracked down and read.
The role doesn't matter, does it? As an Area Review Team member or even a Working Group participant faced with a document with normative references behind a paywall, you face the same problem.
Yes. No. Maybe.
There are some protocols where the only people implementing/interoperating/whatever are all part of a small group that already knows and understands the <whatever is in the paywalled document>, and / or are willing to shell out the money to pay for it.
A recent example of this is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc/ -- there are likely to only be a very small number of people who will implement the tranport part, and they already understand the "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol version 1.3" and / or would be willing to purchase it.
Yes, in an ideal world, this would be an open, free, etc document -- but, absent an ideal world, I still think that it's better that how IPv6 is transmitted over NFC using 6LoWPAN is documented in an RFC than having an undocumented protocol....
W
Sure, you could make some assumptions that what's in the normative reference is correct, or sane, or trustworthy, or whatever. What if you're wrong? What if you want to be certain?Shouldn't our processes err on the side of pushing for quality?-MSK
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
