On 7/8/19 4:26 PM, john heasley wrote:
Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 12:44:14PM -0700, Eric Rescorla:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I suspect people have been jumping off to something which is harder,
and perhaps for them, more interesting, which is signalling that a
particular I-D version is one that is worthy of being implemented, and
perhaps, deployed in a world where new implementations can be reliably
rolled out to a large percentage of the installed base in 2-3 months.
One answer is of course the experimental RFC, but the problem is that
a lot of people see RFC and immediately assume, it's a stable,
IETF-blessed standard documentation, regardless of the "Experimental"
tag on the top of every single page of said document.
An experimental RFC would not address the need I am talking about: we're
spinning one of these every 1-4 months, and doing WGLC, IETF-LC, and RFC
processing would cause far too much delay.
-Ekr
exactly; neither experimental nor informational address the desire completely.
So what it sounds like you need is a link to an internet-draft but
without the version number at the end, that always points to the current
version of that Internet-draft. And IMO the link should actually point
to active content that allows the reader to easily query the revision
history and diffs between changes, and recommendation status of the
draft, instead of (merely) the plain text of the draft. Perhaps the
header portion of the active content should also include that link for
easy referencing: "to obtain the current version of this internet-draft,
visit
https://tools.ietf.org/active-internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xxx-yyy.html";.
Use the normal internet-draft submission mechanism to update such documents.
If we don't already have a page that does this, it doesn't seem like it
would be terribly difficult to add. If you really want to get fancy,
splice the current status and links to revision history and diffs into
the XML before rendering the XML. But that might be overkill.
Seems like it should work just fine up until at least revision -99.
Of course one could always ask for more features. But if it's worth
doing, it seems like it's worth doing simply first.
Keith
