I concur with Mark.
The general principle here is that it should be possible to implement the protocol specified in an RFC without payment of a fee to access the specification. By definition, a normative reference is required to implement the protocol and therefore any normative references fall under this principle. I recognize that S 7.1.1 is somewhat fuzzy on this topic (in that it defines an open standard without reference to free availability).
An Internet Standard TS or AS may incorporate an open external
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2].
Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available
online.
standard by reference. For example, many Internet Standards
incorporate by reference the ANSI standard character set "ASCII" [2].
Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available
online.
However, the text that Mark quotes makes it clear that free availability is a non-requirement, which I think goes in the wrong direction.
I don't think we should publish this document as-is.
-Ekr
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 4:49 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
This leaves the door open for an arbitrary fee or license being required to implement IETF standards, in direct contravention of its OpenStand commitments to have "[d]efined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under *fair terms*" (emphasis mine) and to "[ensure] a broad affordability of the outcome of the standardization process."[^1]
If we choose to allow this, at a minimum the draft needs to contain firm guidelines regarding the terms that such references are available to the public under -- regarding aspects such as intellectual property licensing, financial reasonableness, non-discriminatory access, and so forth.
That said, I think we can do better. One of the definitions of 'open standards' is _free to implement_, and I would hope that the IETF aspires to that.
Cheers,
[^1]: see <https://open-stand.org/resources/>, slide 3
> On 11 May 2024, at 01:51, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
> following document: - 'Procedure for Standards Track Documents to Refer
> Normatively to
> External Documents'
> <draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis-05.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2024-06-07. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> This document specifies a procedure for referencing external
> standards and specifications from IETF-produced documents on the
> Standards Track. In doing so, it updates BCP 9 (RFC 2026).
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/
>
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
