Earlier, Tim Polk wrote (in part): % And are we really helping anyone by not clarifying the % relationship between the document and other RFCs? % % Shouldn't we provide this information as a % service to the reader? Tim, I like you, but your reasoning on this topic comes across as very confused or incompletely informed. The information you discuss is ALREADY available and HAS BEEN available for well over a DECADE now. To be frank, the status is also very very clear to anyone who actually glances at any modern RFC. 1) Each modern RFC has a "Category" field in the header on the first page. This dates back at least to RFC-1517, which was published in September 1993 -- 16 years ago. 2) Separately, and for redundancy, the "Status of This Memo" field has made that information available in less abbreviated form. To pick two arbitrary examples from ~15 years ago that illustrate both that the markings are QUITE CLEAR at even a quick glance AND that these markings go back MANY years now: A) RFC-1704 "On Internet Authentication" <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1704.txt> 1) "Category: Informational" (top left corner) 2) "Status of this Memo" says in entirety: "This document provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited." B) RFC-1626 "IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5" <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1626.txt> 1) "Category: Standards Track" (top left corner) 2) "Status of this Memo" says in entirety: "This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited." 3) As I understand things, and on this I might be a bit out-dated as to the current state of things, there is a concrete proposal to also add to each RFC (starting in the near future and continuing forward) the specific "Document Stream" (i.e. IETF, IRTF, IAB, Independent Submission) via which a particular RFC was published. I have no objection to that addition. I don't think that it is really necessary, given (1) and (2) above, but it seems to make some folks more comfortable and I don't immediately see any harm in that addition. ANALYSIS: Noel's recent note pointing to Donald Eastlake's note is an accurate summary of the situation. We have substantial actual operational experience indicating that IESG notes are handled appropriately by the RFC Editor team. There is zero evidence of a problem. So there is no reasonable cause to make IESG notes on non-IETF-track documents mandatory. Separately, The IESG lacks authority over the overall RFC publication process -- our process documents say that the RFC-Editor reports to the IAB, not the IESG. This was done *precisely* because it has always been true that many RFCs are not produced via the IETF processes. The RFC process dates back to 1969 -- 40 years ago. The IETF wasn't itself formed until the middle 1980s. Lastly, the RFC Editor and IAB have responsibilities to the entire "Internet community", whilst the IESG has more narrow responsibilities for IETF Standards activities. The "IETF Community" is a proper subset of the larger "Internet Community". A number of folks aren't active in IETF work, but are active in IRTF work or are otherwise important parts of the broader "Internet Community". For this reason, even if there were IETF consensus of a problem (and frankly, there seems to be smooth consensus amongst non-IESG members that there is NOT a problem), that would be the wrong yard-stick to use for changing processes applicable to non-IETF-track documents. Again, this is why RFC publication is an IAB responsibility instead of an IESG responsibility, and why our process documents say that the RFC Editor reports to the IAB. BOTTOM LINE: There seems to be clear consensus amongst folks outside the IESG that (1) there is no current problem and (2) no process change is warranted to make IESG notes mandatory on non-IETF-track documents. REQUEST: I would urge the IESG to formally abandon the advocacy to change this aspect of our processes, and to say that this has been abandoned on the IETF discussion list. Yours, Ran Atkinson rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf