On 7/16/19 8:46 PM, john heasley wrote:
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.
eh, not exactly; there are baggage and expectation associated with that
name that does not seem appropriate/necessary.
I want RFC 7525 to not be a RFC nor a draft, instead a Living Document (LD)
that the WG publishes on github (or pick another SCM) with WG consensus,
and does not take a year+ to publish or update.
I could see some utility in having some documents being able to be
updated in place. But I would have serious concerns with document
content like RFC7525 (i.e. technical recommendations for implementation
and/or operation of protocols) approved without IETF consensus. It is
essentially part of a protocol specification. So a WG should not be
able to "publish" such a document, nor approve it based entirely on its
own consensus. That would not only bypass IETF consensus (and cross-area
review), it would effectively bypass appeals and other safeguards we
have in place. Even if the effect were "mostly harmless" in most
cases, it would be a really bad precedent for others.
I would also object to IETF consensus documents making normative
reference to such a document.
I also think trying to define IETF consensus for a moving target could
be challenging. Not impossible, perhaps, just challenging.
But I'd be supportive of trying to streamline the IETF consensus process
for such documents, on the theory that review of such documents
(including analysis of likely effects) should be easier than review of
full protocol specifications.
Keith
