Yes. and now we are repeating the SAAG discussion in its entirety.
Eliot
On 09.12.2024 20:32, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
On 10-Dec-24 05:27, Eliot Lear wrote:
But it is, Joe. The proof is that the ISE gets requests all the time from people saying that the need the RFC # in order to gain customer adoption. That doesn't mean don't EVER get deployed but at least then we've done our due diligence.
This does, however, suggests by analogy that allowing an I-D to satisfy a "Specification Required" IANA assignment policy is not acceptable. BCP 26 (RFC 8126) requires "a permanent and readily available public specification" which also implies due diligence. Every I-D states clearly that "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material" which seems to make things very clear, with or without a mythical 6 months expiry.
Brian
Eliot
On 09.12.2024 17:17, touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 9, 2024, at 7:20 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote:There’s no way to avoid that in any public message even it it is stated explicitly
What I care about is this:
The IETF community (and those generating IRTF and independent submissions) need a way to signal to the community that draft means just that: it's draft work, and not intended for broad deployment. Otherwise, we end up with all of the support issues I mentioned earlier.
Eliot
Lots of things get deployed even when they aren’t in such messages.
I.e., that doesn’t seem avoidable.
Joe
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
