On 2024-12-10, at 21:07, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson > <john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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 registry saying that "permanent and readily >> available" internet-drafts are NOT OK, but pointing to a website outside of >> the IETF is… > > On 12/10/24, 2:49 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <c...@tzi.org <mailto:c...@tzi.org>> > wrote: >> This. >> There really can’t be any discussion on the facts here. > > Except that the boilerplate in every internet draft says "It is inappropriate > to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as > 'work in progress'" and some people have a problem with using a work in > progress as the defining reference for an IANA registry. I think the solution > to that is to fix the boilerplate somehow.
The boilerplate has indeed been “inappropriate” for a long time. But that is more or less a religious discussion, not one about facts on the ground. I wouldn’t mind if we fixed the text to better reflect its intention (= outcome now desired given we are no longer in the state that made the original wording attractive), but we don’t need to complete the (likely lengthy) process before acknowledging the above reality. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
