While I am sure we will differ on the details, the approach you describe
sounds like one I can work with.
Thank you,
Joel
On 12/11/2024 8:38 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Joel,
Thanks for your note. I agree that there is a lot of variation in the
demands of protocols and we should be trying to s
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:38 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > deadwood-lear-widget-update-protocol, and as you wrote below,
> appropriate
> > boiler plate is applied. Something along the following lines:
>
> > “This document was previously an Internet-Draft, w
Joel,
Thanks for your note. I agree that there is a lot of variation in the
demands of protocols and we should be trying to support the needs of
different communities within the IETF (I think that's what you are saying,
at least!).
Re a blanket rule: I think it would be bad to retroactively chang
Alan DeKok writes:
> IMHO, reality trumps wishful thinking. If it is the official
> position of the IETF that vendors shouldn't claim compliance with an
> Internet Draft, then perhaps the IETF should ensure that useful and
> implemented Internet Drafts are (a) published as an RFC
+1
If the p
On Dec 10, 2024, at 8:55 PM, Salz, Rich
wrote:
> In the spirit of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, further
> quoting from 2026:
>
> * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft*
> * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-*
> * for-Proposa
>but the fact remains that "the way things are arranged here" is *different*
>from what is described in our founding process document. And it's just weird
>that we don't update that document to formally permit what we actually do.
As of the last IETF, we have proposed documents for revising 2026
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:48 AM Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>
> On 12-Dec-24 02:27, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > On 2024-12-11, at 13:56, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >>
> >> For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments to
> >> drafts than I do with drafts not being considered work
On 12-Dec-24 02:27, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2024-12-11, at 13:56, Eliot Lear wrote:
For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments to
drafts than I do with drafts not being considered working documents.
I believe the magical solution to all this is:
Make no chang
Jean Mahoney wrote:
> [JM] The RPC does assess links for long-term stability and will ask
authors
> if there is an alternative available if the link does not look stable
(e.g.,
> it's linking to a personal site).
> Copies of outlinks are saved through Archive-It.org. Links are
Eliot Lear wrote:
> deadwood-lear-widget-update-protocol, and as you wrote below, appropriate
> boiler plate is applied. Something along the following lines:
> “This document was previously an Internet-Draft, was not accepted for
> publication as an RFC, and has not been shown t
Salz, Rich wrote:
> I don’t know about that. The general population seems unable to tell
> the difference among the various RFC streams, as well as drafts and
> not.
ha. Very cynical ha.
> But if necessary, one possible fix is this:
} It is inappropriate to use Internet-Dra
Hi all,
On 12/11/24 2:56 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi John, Carsten,
At 11:48 AM 10-12-2024, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson
wrote:
>
> Internet-drafts are obviously "permanent and readily
available", I don't see why that is debated. For registries wanting
>> The way things are arranged here kind of works, even if ugly in come
>> corners, and nobody has yet come up with a proposed change that would
>> actually improve the outcome.
>>
> On 2024-12-11, at 15:01, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Rather, nobody has come up with a proposed change that can get
+1 to status quo.
Behcet
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 9:40 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I believe the magical solution to all this is:
>
> +1
>
>
> ___
> saag mailing list -- s...@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to saag-le...@ietf.org
>
___
Hi, all,
> On Dec 11, 2024, at 7:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> You and I may be thinking along the same lines. The issue for me is whether
> or not a work is in its terminal state. I was thinking the easiest way to do
> this was to have an author click a button to shift the work
> I believe the magical solution to all this is:
+1
___
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
Hi Mike,
You and I may be thinking along the same lines. The issue for me is
whether or not a work is in its terminal state. I was thinking the
easiest way to do this was to have an author click a button to shift the
work from "internet-draft" to something like "deadwood". So
draft-lear-wi
On 12/11/2024 7:56 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Eric,
On 11.12.2024 13:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear wrote:
And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you
change that boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and
create support
I think there are a couple of aspects in EKR's note. It seems likely
that there can be WGs with approaches and clarity enough to know when a
code point is sufficiently well-defined by the then-current I-D. But
that is by no means universal. There also may be protocols that are
sufficiently
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 4:56 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Eric,
> On 11.12.2024 13:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>> And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you change
>> that boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and crea
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 5:27 AM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2024-12-11, at 13:56, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments
> to drafts than I do with drafts not being considered working documents.
>
> I believe the magical solution to all
On 2024-12-11, at 13:56, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments to
> drafts than I do with drafts not being considered working documents.
I believe the magical solution to all this is:
Make no changes.
The way things are arranged here k
Eric,
On 11.12.2024 13:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear wrote:
And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you
change that boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and
create support and interoperability problems as people en
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear wrote:
> And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you change that
> boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and create support and
> interoperability problems as people end up implementing different versions
> of a specification.
Hi John, Carsten,
At 11:48 AM 10-12-2024, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson
wrote:
>
> Internet-drafts are obviously
"permanent and readily available", I don't see
why that is debated. For registries wanting
RFCs there is "RFC required". I am against any
25 matches
Mail list logo
