Adam Roach wrote:
While the presence of alternate streams of publication doesn't bother
me, I think they need to be automatically and prominently marked as
being something other than an IETF document.
In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt>, there is going to be a strong
presumption on their part that the document was produced by the IETF.
In the cases that this presumption is incorrect, it seems tantamount
to deception to tuck the distinction between IETF and non-IETF
documents away in an obscure header field.
/a
Your argument seems to me to be the latest version of the 30-year old
discussion about whether all
RFCs are standards. They are not. And even documents in the IETF
stream (which includes
individual submission, by the way) very considerably in quality and safety.
Bob Braden
Jari Arkko wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on this draft.
But first some background. This draft was brought to a second last
call in June because several IESG members felt uncomfortable with the
IESG notes being used only in exceptional circumstances. I asked Russ
to prepare the -07 version. This version allowed notes to be used at
the IESG's discretion and suggested that the linkage (or lack
thereof) to IETF work would typically be explained in the note. This
version was taken to the second last call.
While the number of comments we received was small, after the last
call was over I determined that the consensus was against this
change. As a result, I asked Russ to prepare the -08 version. This
version goes back to the "exceptional" wording from -06, but
incorporated a number of editorial corrections that had been made in
interim. I also took the draft back to the IESG telechat last week.
The IESG was not extremely pleased with the new version, but my
understanding is that they were willing to accept the changes.
However, a new issue was brought up: one of the changes that Russ and
I felt was editorial highlighted the fact that the document makes the
IESG notes a recommendation to the RFC Editor, not something that
would automatically always be applied to the published RFC. Some IESG
members were concerned about this, and preferred the latter.
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get
a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional
IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something
that is always applied to the published RFC. Please reply before the
next IESG meeting on September 10. Some e-mails on this topic have
already been sent in the Last Call thread -- I have seen those and
there is no need to resend.
(For the record my own slight preference is b. But I have to say that
I think the document has been ready to be shipped from version -06,
and its unfortunate that we're not there yet, particularly since this
document is holding up the implementation of the new headers and
boilerplates system for independent submissions, IRTF submissions and
IETF submissions. I will exhaust all possible means of getting this
approved in the next meeting, as soon as I know what the community
opinion is.)
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf