I stated both a strong preference (free) and a floor (RAND) in my original email. Sent from my iPhone > On 12 May 2024, at 4:25 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mark, > > Hang on a moment. Before you were arguing for RAND. Now you're arguing for free. Which is it? > > Eliot > >> On 12.05.2024 02:03, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> My .02: Informational. >> >>>> On 12 May 2024, at 10:01, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On this week's telechat is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis/ which has a Normative dependency on ANSI X9.44. >>> >>> I didn't know where to find that spec, but some light googling turned up: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ansix9442007r2017 which suggests it's available for 60 USD. >>> >>> What would your recommendation be for handling this draft? >>> >>>> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 3:56 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> > <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc> -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
