Hi -
On 2024-03-25 3:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, March 25, 2024 14:02 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi -
On 2024-03-25 1:51 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Randy,
At 01:19 PM 25-03-2024, Randy Presuhn wrote:
What is the conflict you see? The text you cited seems to
me to present no conflict. A posted Internet-Draft
certainly seems to fit within the realm of "a document
published outside of the RFC path, including informal
documentation."
This takes the discussion to what Mike pointed out at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FqmdAQY_C7jOGh_KV-
HkC5MP7Xs
I also mentioned "formal public specification". If I am not
mistaken, that would include standards from other bodies or
national standards for which a code point is required.
If it's ok to cite an I-D as "work in progress," how is that
different from "informal documentation" in any meaningful way?
If it is being used as part of the definition for an entry in an
IANA registry, that makes it "reference material", not just a
work in progress. In addition, if it were actually a work in
progress, that would make it unsuitable for part of the
definition for a registry entry because it would be an odd
indeed to have a registration of a moving target rather than a
stable definition.
I think that may be just a different way to express Mike's
concern.
The same criticisms might be leveled against any sort of "informal
documentation." The question really needs to be whether the
document has sufficient information to support the registration -
and that, in turn, depends on the uses envisioned for that registry
at the time it was carved out, not every possible tweak that the
document might subsequently experience. I think concerns about
stability are well-founded, but obsessing about them opens a massive
can of worms. Think back to the various incarnations of ASN.1 since
the 1980s, or even the question of what "SNMP" has meant at various
points in time.
Randy
