[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IAB] issue with the URLs in the ID boilerplate

Hi, John,
point taken. This was supposed to be a simple elimination of a few lines, but I went down the rathole of starting to tweak the boilerplate too much. (Never a good idea.) So let's do a minimal change compared to current text: 

  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
  Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
  working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
  Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.

  Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
  and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
  time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
  material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

  This Internet-Draft will expire on <date>.

Compared to the version currently used, this:
(1) removes the "its areas, and its working groups" part from the first sentence (2) appends "The list of current Internet-Drafts..." to the first paragraph 
(3) removes the shadow repository pointers

See the attached diff for marked-up changes.

Lars
Title: Diff: old.txt - new.txt
 old.txt   new.txt 
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current
Drafts. Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on <date>.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
3 lines changed or deleted 3 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ 




On 2009-10-26, at 15:29, John C Klensin wrote:





--On Monday, October 26, 2009 13:53 +0200 Lars Eggert
<lars.eggert at nokia.com> wrote:


On 2009-10-26, at 13:40, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:

If we assume that IDs = IETF-IDs + Other-IDs, is it then
appropriate (or even true?) to assume that also "Other-IDs"
have a 6 month validity time?


Let's try a different approach. Instead of saying
"Internet-Drafts come from the IETF but maybe also elsewhere",
let's go back to saying that IDs are IETF docs but others may
write stuff that looks like IDs (but aren't). That solves that
issue and is maybe also overall
cleaner:

  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering
  Task Force (IETF).  Other groups may distribute documents
that look
  like Internet-Drafts, but are not IETF documents.  The IETF
  Internet-Drafts repository is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
...


I think this is missing the point.   Unless I'm mistaken, the
reason for the "other groups..." language is that what we now
call the IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submission streams all use
the I-D publication mechanism without thereby making the
documents "working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF)".   Those documents may still be "IETF documents"
(a term that has become important from an IETF Trust
perspective), but are obviously not "working documents of the
IETF" since, by definition, the IETF is not working on them.

The issue isn't what others might produce that look like
something we might produce.  That wouldn't require any special
statement.

Observation: as the topic moves from the broken URL problem to
textual statements in the boilerplate, using the wg-chairs list
to becomes, IMO, less and less the right place to be trying to
make decisions on the questions involved.   First, the people
with the history of how the current language came to be are
Scott Bradner and maybe Dave Crocker.  I think one should at
least understand that history and motivation before trying to
make changes and, as far as I know, neither of them are active
WG Chairs and hence on this list.  Second, the language used to
describe I-Ds has both IPR implications ("what is an 'IETF
document'" and  the use of I-D posting as a mechanism for
requiring patent disclosures and securing RFC 5378 releases) and
potentially other implications for the non-IETF RFC publication
streams.  It seems unwise to me to contemplate making those
changes without an early opportunity for those groups to
evaluate probable consequences.

    john





  Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
six months
  and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any
  time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference
  material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Lars

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature