On 26/01/2017 00:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 25/01/2017 23:07, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 25/01/2017 07:42, Jari Arkko wrote:
Stewart,
Thanks again for your comments. Inline:
In the body of this document you say:
j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026].
RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying
that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really
reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these
documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft
we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary
documents.
OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this
context be sufficient?
Well we could tell the whole story: they are a temporary document for
the purposes
of actively progressing our work, but are persistent and remain beyond
the publication of any
RFC for the purposes of traceability.
I think just dropping "temporary" is sufficient. We know that I-Ds have
been accepted as prior art in court cases, so it's really irrelevant
for the purposes of the current draft. And I don't think we should do
a backdoor update of RFC 2026 here.
Dropping temporary would work, but I don't see that telling the truth
about what
actually happens and has happened for a long time is wrong either. If
RFC2026 is
out of step with reality on this point, there is no point in hiding it.
Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who
fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of
other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that
only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents.
Fair point.
If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call
out those that help ADs as part of their review process.
It's section 5.2.3 actually. But I agree, it could read
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors or persons assisting
them may become aware of Contributions late in the process ...
Yes, that would fix that problem.
- Stewart