Todd: The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track RFCs.
Russ On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM, tglassey wrote: > On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >> Dave: > Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully > franchised IETF Standard Process??? > > i.e. could I for instance through the ISS process submit a I-D and a > RFC-Framework Proposal with that? In this case the framework proposal would > define the 'canonization process' for this specific piece of IP and set the > milestones for this independent stream standard??? > > This would be a very very good thing I think if it were to become possible. > >>>> The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments >>>> that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to >>>> be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a >>>> court order to do so. > Which will apply to its publication and continued use rights how? > > I still think we need to answer the specific question as to what this > actually means to the previous licensing... >>>> That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide >>>> important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the >>>> IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should >>>> teated as a significant event. >>>> >>>> Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> On behalf of the IESG, >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- >>>> >>>> SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide >>>> important historical records for the open and transparent operation of >>>> the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF >>>> Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds. >>> The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also >>> uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? >> No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB and the >> IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds. >> >> RFC 4844 says: >> >> 5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream >> >> The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical >> community than the IETF. The "Independent Submission" stream is >> defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that >> are outside the scope of the streams identified above. >> >> Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under >> the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its >> review from the IESG. >> >> The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent >> Submission stream is defined by >> >> o Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor (RFC 4846 [RFC4846]). >> >> o The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures (RFC 3932 >> [RFC3932]). >> >> (Since RFC 4844 was written, RFC3932 was obsoleted by RFC 5742.) >> >>>> I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds >>>> are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are >>>> stored in a Public I-D Archive. >>>> >>>> While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal >>>> at any time, >>> They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was >>> the regular 6-month timeout. >> No, this is not new. It goes back to RFC 1310 in March 1992. If you >> publish draft-crocker-blah-blah-00.txt, is is very ofter replaced by -01. >> The -00 is taken down before the six month expiration. >> >> RFC 1310 said: >> >> An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the >> Internet Draft directory. A document that has remained unchanged >> in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without >> being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply >> removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an >> Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same >> specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. >> >> This remains today; the I-D boilerplate says: >> >> 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." >> >>>> I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support >>>> easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates >>>> review, comment, and revision. >>>> >>>> An entry in the I-D Repository is removed as part of normal process >>>> when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent >>>> I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all >>>> of these situations, the I-D remains in the Public I-D Archive. >>> The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy >>> assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal policy >>> statement about the series and its archive(s). >>> >>> That would leave the current statement to focus on its specific topic. >> These were included to provide context for the policy statement. As we have >> seen on this thread, there has been at least as much discussion about these >> background paragraphs as the policy. >> >>>> An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus >>>> of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this >>>> action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second, >>>> to resolve some form of abuse. >>> This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own >>> abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express >>> comfort with this language? >> Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this is the >> resulting text. This text was never a part that was edited in the exchange. >> >>>> If possible, a removed I-D will be >>>> replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D >>>> was removed from the Public I-D Archive. >>>> >>>> When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy will be kept >>>> in a location accessible only by the IETF Leadership and the IETF >>>> Secretariat. This private location may be searched by the IETF >>>> Leadership or the IETF Secretariat when responding to appeals, >>>> responding to subpoenas, or otherwise handling to legal matters. >>> Interesting. An archive archive. >>> >>> IETF "leadership" isn't a formal term. Who does it include/exclude? WG >>> Chairs? Why? Why not? >> I think it is fairly clear that the "leadership" is a party that would need >> access to this material when "responding to appeals, responding to >> subpoenas, or otherwise handling to legal matters." I proposed this term >> because the parties that need access may well depend on the nature of the >> legal matter. >> >>> Over time, given the number of people who hold various IETF leadership >>> positions, this effectively gives access to a very large fraction of the >>> IETF community. >> I envision a mechanism where the access is only granted to the specific >> files needed to address the appeal, subpoena, or other legal matter. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5288 - Release Date: 09/23/12 >> >> >> > > > -- > //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended > recipient. >
