Éric, Thanks. Too small additional comments inline... --On Thursday, August 29, 2024 17:17 +0000 "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello John > > Thank you for your email: you raised two good points: > 1. A "chain" between RFC 8110 to the future IEEE 802.11 > standard would be nice, if ever the IEEE 802.11 WG comes with the > actual standard for OWE before AUTH48, then we could easily update > the I-D (as it does not change the technical content, I do not > think that the whole process needs to be restarted). If IEEE comes > after AUTH48 (probably), then Google/any search engine should be > enough as this I-D clearly points to the next SDO being IEEE. Yes, but... At the risk of opening a much broader problem, as soon as we say something like "Google/any search engine should be enough", a significant fraction of the time and resources that are being put into ever-better RFC Editor metadata and tools, and perhaps even parts of the Datatracker efforts themselves, become questionable, At least IMO, we capture information such as inter-document relationships, updates, etc., precisely to be sure the information is authoritative and under our control. The observation that it is much easier to get a clear answer (from the RFC Editor site and metadata or the Datatracker) to a question like "has RFC 8626 been replaced or updated and by what" if its metadata (had it been issued) pointed to an updating/ obsoleting RFC than if the replacement was a product of the hypothetical StandardsAreUs organization, even if there had been an explicit handoff. As an experiment drawing on my earlier example, I just tried putting "is there a new definition succeeding RFC 1866?" into Google. The results were, umm, unsatisfying. Could I have gotten better results by fussing with the query? Maybe. But you probably get the point. That leads me to believe that we probably ought to have a mechanism for explicitly obsoleting 8110 at some point and, ideally (borrowing from Dan's note), pointing to IEEE Std 802.11-2024 (or IEEE Std 802.11-2025, as appropriate). A comparison between this I-D and RFC 2854 may be interesting in this regard although, in retrospect, the title of that document is less than optimal because it appears to be only about a media type definition. However, reclassification of a collection of documents that used to be standards track to Historic at least sends someone off on the sort of search you suggested and that I, rather weakly, tried. Assuming Dan is right about timing (I did an independent search some days ago and found nothing inconsistent with his remarks), your comment and the above might argue for approving the I-D, publishing the document action, but deferring publication until there is a final IEEE date, not just optimism about the end of the year. None of that should hold up the current action. But, given that we have handed specifications off to other bodies in the pass, are doing it with this, and probably will do it in the future, thinking about making things a bit more tidy in the future is probably a good idea. > 2. > It may be worth indeed to publish a short I-D about the whole > process we (the authors, the community, and I) went through. Thanks > for the suggestion. That would certainly be a first step. My comments earlier and above suggest going a bit further than such a summary. This might even be a small topic for they hypothetical WG to succeed Rich's 2026bis effort. However, I'm not going to second-guess you or the IESG about timing or priorities for this type or work. regards and thanks again, john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
