Has the IETF committed itself - through an actual public discussion - of making the IDs archival? Keeping them online - yes. Keeping them at a fixed URL, I think not and I think RFC8447 was a mistake. Referencing RFC8477 as precedent for Murray's question seems problematic.
If you really want to know, perhaps ask tools-discuss email? Or search the email archives.
Citing RFC 8447 as precedent is exactly the right thing to do, since it’s a standards-track IETF stream RFC.
I'd recommend revoking the notes on the existing registries that allow references to IDs. And, going forward, request the IESG refrain from approving any further notes similar to those on RFC8447 until there's an actual consensus and a plan to support "archivalness" of the ID series (e.g. with a fixed URL and with a firm requirement that closes the path of updating the ID).
It seems a bit premature to recommend actions on the basis of “I think not.”
So you're saying that a registry update document that most people
don't give a damn about (along with SNMP mibs and YANG modules and
ASN1 module) and that probably was seen by maybe a few dozen
people if that, that had IANA add a note to the registry gets to
change the meaning of the IDs - as written in the standard boiler
plate - from "not citeable" to "citeable" for all future RFCs?
To restate "I believe not." To be clearer, consensus to change
major things (and this would be a major change) requires informed
consensus of the community, and I don't believe a fairly opaque
note in a WG document that most would consider registry
boilerplate qualifies.
If you want to do this, I'd suggest you propose a change to the
ID boilerplate that removes the language: "It is inappropriate to
use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other
than as "work in progress." " I'd also suggest having a
discussion with the LLC, tools and IANA on what is actually needed
to support that change in terms of process, server support and
tools support.
Move that change through the IETF mailing list, not the TLS list
(and definitely NOT the RSWG list). That will make sure you have
the support to have stable references for IDs going into the
future that aren't shredded by a website redo.
Later, Mike
