On 02-Dec-24 07:24, Michael Richardson wrote:
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On 01/12/2024 17:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I think that the very-big-tent collective "we" have benefitted
>> greatly from the multi-decade ambiguity about the RFC series.
> If the above is the case, why do you think we no longer benefit
> in that way, or what's changed that we're no longer ok with the
> ambiguity?
I think that we've always been uncomfortable internally with the
ambiguity, and I think this comes out loudly when we consider what it means
to publish an RFC (not a standards track one), about a cryptographic protocol
that some do not like.
There's nothing new about Informational RFCs that are a (re)publication
of an external specification. That was covered in RFC 2026 section 4.2.2:
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
It certainly was a bit ambiguous when you couldn't tell from the text of
the RFC whether it was that kind of Informational or the normal kind that
originated in the IETF. But that changed when the Independent RFC series
was formalized.
Today external specifications should be in the Independent series not subjct
to IETF consensus, and I think that has removed the ambiguity for anyone
who reads the boilerplate. If people don't read the boilerplate, that
isn't our problem.
Why has saag has been discussing it? External specifications should
go to the Independent series, and they shouldn't normally be normative
references in IETF standards track documents.
We did it right as recently as RFC 9558, for example.
Externally, the ambiguity borders upon fraud, and it used to propel marketing
people into wanting informational RFCs that they can claim are RFCs, and this
generally leads to more activity than we perhaps have resources to run.
(Does it still propel marketing people? I don't know.
If people don't read the boilerplate, they might be misled. There's
nothing we can do about that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
