Both you and Eliot are focusing exclusively on my preference rather than the floor, and assuming there's no nuance in that position. For example, the draft could say something like: ~~~ IETF specifications have the most impact on interoperability when they are able to be implemented without encumbrance. Therefore, there is a strong preference for normative references from them to be freely available and without unreasonable intellectual property encumbrances. When a Working Group or AD-sponsored author is considering a normative reference to a document that is not freely available, they should first establish that it is not possible to use an alternative reference, incorporate the relevant parts of the specification into their document, use an alternative approach, or otherwise avoid the reference. Fully exploring these options may require coordination through liaisons. If after doing so the Working Group comes to consensus (or an author still believes) that it is still necessary to use such a reference, they must bring the reference to the attention of the IESG with a rationale for its inclusion, the details of the terms required to access it, and a summary of the alternative approaches considered. It is recommended that this happen as soon as possible (i.e., not leaving it until IETF Last Call). The IESG will consider the financial and intellectual property terms under which the reference is available, its value to the work in question, how necessary access to the reference is to understand and implement the work, and the impact upon likely implementers of the specification (broadly interpreted). It will then communicate its decision back to the Working Group or author. Under no circumstances will the IESG approve a reference that is not available on non-discriminatory terms. ~~~ Some of this text could be expanded and worked into other parts of the draft, of course. Note that this does *not* advocate the downreference registry approach -- what may be a necessary evil for one draft may not pass muster for another. Cheers, > On 13 May 2024, at 06:21, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12-May-24 20:14, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Thanks; I was confused by your answer. You're essentially eliminating not only ANSI, but ISO, IEC, vertical organizations like KNX, and perhaps most relevant to this organization, IEEE. > > Which, as citizens of the real world, we absolutely cannot do (and never have done, since before RFC 2026). For things on which our whole edifice depends, it would be the height of absurdity *not* to reference them. > > I'm all in favour of also citing accessible material, but if we need an IEEE etc. standard, we simply have no choice. > >> *Also*. My recent experience is that access to the specifications is often not enough to implement, because of IPR licensing issues. If you *really *want to go down this rabbit hole, it's a LONG way down. > > Quite. But all vendors have this problem, and either pay up or go rogue - their choice, not ours. > > This is a tricky issue for open source projects, but not one that the IETF can solve. > > Brian > >> Eliot >> On 12.05.2024 09:11, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> 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 ishttps://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 toiesg@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 toietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mark Nottinghamhttps://www.mnot.net/ >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> last-call mailing list --last-call@xxxxxxxx >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email tolast-call-leave@xxxxxxxx >>>>>> -- >>>>>> last-call mailing list --last-call@xxxxxxxx >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email tolast-call-leave@xxxxxxxx >>>>> -- >>>>> Mark Nottinghamhttps://www.mnot.net/ >>>>> >>>> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc> -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
