Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Thursday, 02 October, 2008 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden at ISI.EDU> wrote:

> and you wrote:
> 
>   *> So, we no longer remove documents from the I-D directory
> when   *> the Protocol Action notice is issued and the RFC
> Editor   *> notified.  We don't have the Internet Society
> Newsletter   *> contemplated by the second paragraph, so it
> can't be the   *> "publication of record".  And we have
> dropped STD0001 as a   *> frequently-updated publication.
>   *>  
> 
> The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated
> daily. And we recently published a "periodic" version as an
> RFC, over some people's dead bodies, I might add.

Bob,

In large measure because of the health risks associated with
leaving dead bodies lying around the landscape and, as I
suggested in my response to Dave, a desire to avoid recruiting a
corps of rat hole diggers and passing out shovels, I would like
to avoid the question of whether that daily update is actually
STD 1 or just another form of the "RFC Index".   Because 2026
permits the association of the "Standard" designation (and the
associated STD number) only with published RFCs that have gone
through IETF Last Call, with consensus determination by the
IESG, and specifically refers to STD1 as an RFC, I think the
claim that the dynamic online document is the actual STD1 is
dubious at best.

Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
running on the waiting period.  I think that would violate
common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
waiting peFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Thu Oct  2 11:12:25 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0419C3A6CF1;
	Thu,  2 Oct 2008 11:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A173A6B5D
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Oct 2008 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id KGdG2qOwHDgL for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu,  2 Oct 2008 11:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6833A6816
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Oct 2008 11:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM)
	by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1KlSfH-000GDh-NF; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:12:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:12:38 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
To: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>, lisa at osafoundation.org, sob at harvard.edu
Subject: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
Message-ID: <8AC2E9C4254D48AC972A4797 at p3.int.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <200810021656.JAA01577 at gra.isi.edu>
References: <200810021656.JAA01577 at gra.isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: presnick at qualcomm.com, tony at att.com, ietf at ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org



--On Thursday, 02 October, 2008 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden at ISI.EDU> wrote:

> and you wrote:
> 
>   *> So, we no longer remove documents from the I-D directory
> when   *> the Protocol Action notice is issued and the RFC
> Editor   *> notified.  We don't have the Internet Society
> Newsletter   *> contemplated by the second paragraph, so it
> can't be the   *> "publication of record".  And we have
> dropped STD0001 as a   *> frequently-updated publication.
>   *>  
> 
> The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated
> daily. And we recently published a "periodic" version as an
> RFC, over some people's dead bodies, I might add.

Bob,

In large measure because of the health risks associated with
leaving dead bodies lying around the landscape and, as I
suggested in my response to Dave, a desire to avoid recruiting a
corps of rat hole diggers and passing out shovels, I would like
to avoid the question of whether that daily update is actually
STD 1 or just another form of the "RFC Index".   Because 2026
permits the association of the "Standard" designation (and the
associated STD number) only with published RFCs that have gone
through IETF Last Call, with consensus determination by the
IESG, and specifically refers to STD1 as an RFC, I think the
claim that the dynamic online document is the actual STD1 is
dubious at best.

Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
running on the waiting period.  I think that would violate
common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
waiting period betriod between IESG action and RFC publication.   I
think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,
but, again, not a place I want to go.

     john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


ween IESG action and RFC publication.   I
think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,
but, again, not a place I want to go.

     john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf