> On 11 May 2024, at 10:04, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mark, > > On 11-May-24 11:42, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I'm sure that this has been discussed somewhere already, but I object to this text in the draft: >>> Note that there is no requirement for a freely available copy of the reference after the publication of the draft as an RFC, nor is there any requirement that the copies be provided to the general public. > > But there is no way the IETF can impose anything on another SDO. I did not suggest that; I suggested we be more careful in our choices of what to reference -- in particular, assuring that when we do make a normative reference to something that isn't free, we assure that it available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. > This is presumably why the draft says: > > "Authors and editors should try to avoid such references due to the challenges they present, as they affect the IETF's ability to ensure the quality of its output. However, such references are not always avoidable." > > and empowers the IESG to impose certain requirements. Where does it do that? > The draft doesn't use BCP14 terminology, since RFC2026 itself doesn't, so "should" means what it says. I don't think there's any realistic alternative when such cases arise, much as I agree with the principle of freely available open standards. The current text is vague and open to interpretation, and so falls short of our OpenStand commitments. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
