Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since RFcs are archival. However, many I-Ds do not make it through the process and to archive them may seem to elevate them to a status that they have not merited. I don't mean to suggest that these documents have not value. The next author of a book on the history of IETF standards would certainly find them of great value. But, I don't want to see them cited in some product marketing data sheet, further confusing folks who already are confused by the fact that all standards are RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards ... Steve
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
Stephen Kent wrote: I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since RFcs are archival And I'll make a pithy counter-observation: if they're worth being referenced in an RFC (as "works-in-progress") then they're worth saving. IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a "work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful. In any case, as Scott Bradner informed us, they will soon be available, so this is officially a moot point. ...But, I don't want to see them cited in some product marketing data sheet, further confusing folks who already are confused by the fact that all standards are RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards ... Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years. Some writers and editors know the difference; others don't; usually there's someone in the loop who knows better and can fix it before it gets published. -pl +-+ | Pete Loshin http://www.loshin.com | | Internet-Standard.com http://Internet-Standard.com| | The RFC Books Serieshttp://www.loshin.com/bigbooks.html | | The Linux Project http://www.thelinuxproject.com | +-+
DNAP EMERGING BIOTECH TRADING UNDER $1 !!!
TO ALL OFF OUR LISTMEMBERS STUDY THESE DD LINKS AND I'M SURE YOU'LL BE AMAZED AS WE WERE AT THIS UPCOMING BIOTECH COMPANY. THE CEO, ONCE A LEAD SCIENTIST FOR CORIXA WHO'S PATENT WAS SOLD FOR 54 MILLION, STARTED JIS OWN COMPANY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WITH A REVERSE MERGER OF A PENNY STOCK THAT WAS LISTED BUT NOT DOING ANYTHING. DNAP IS TRADING AT 25 CENTS AND IN OUR OPINION NOT FOR LONG. BUT DO YOUR DUE DILLIGENCE AND READ THE LINKS. GOOD LUCK IN ALL YOUR TRADING. (DNAP) - investor information links (updated last on 09-22-00 @ 13:34pm) DNAprint Genomics (CORPORATE WEB SITE)- http://www.dnaprint.com/ Company Profile DNAPrint genomics is a young e-biotech company based in southwest Florida. The company is developing an informatics platform system that will provide dynamic solutions for disease gene discovery, genetic predisposition and genetic analysis testing. Their work has real-life application to the germinating field of Personalized Medicine and will help lay the foundation for a brand-new area of medical research called Phenomics. DNAP PART #1 (CORPORATE MISSION)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9893 DNAP PART #2 (MEDICINE FOR THE 20TH CENTURY)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9894 DNAP PART #3 (THE SCIENCE)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9896 DNAP PART #4 (SERVICES)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9897 DNAP PART #5 (ADVANTAGES)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9898 DNAP PART #6 (TECHNOLOGY)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9899 DNAP PART #7 (PROGRAMS)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9901 DNAP PART #8 (INVESTOR RELATIONS)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9902 DNAP PART #9 (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9903 DNAP PART #10 (FOUNDERS)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=9904 OUTSTANDING SHARES FLOAT LINKS: issued/outstanding shares/float- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=16036 explaination of share structure after CLYC merger- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=16037 CEOcast INTRERVIEW WITH CEO- Tony Frudakis, Ph.D., President/Laboratory Director/CEO DNAprint genomics, Inc. (OTC: DNAP)- http://www.ceocast.com/company.cfm?cid=659n=122432 (MUST REGISTER WITH WEB SITE TO HEAR THE INTERVIEW) WALL STREET REPORTER INTEVIEW WITH CEO- Tony Frudakis, Ph.D., President/Laboratory Director/CEO DNAprint genomics, Inc. (OTC: DNAP)- http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/interviews/aug/16/DNAPrintGenomics.htm Q A WITH Tony Frudakis, Ph.D. (Chief Scientific Officer- DNAprint Genomics) 1748 Independence Blvd., Ste. D1, Sarasota, FL 34234 (941) 351-4543 or (941) 351-7388- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=10853 CONVERSATION WITH Craig Hall, (Director of Financial Analysis-Tampa Bay Financial)[Craigs phone number is 941 341-0136] September 6-8, 2000- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?read=15868board=DNAP STOCK ANALYSTS HOT PICKS- Pennystockprofits.com- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=15730 Tipreporter.com- http://www.tipreporter.com/search.php?search=dnap Stocktribe.com Continues Coverage of DNAPrint Genomics Inc. (Wednesday September 13, 3:15 pm Eastern Time)- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=16835 SockTheStocks Profiles DNAP- http://www.sockthestocks.com/profiles/dnap.htm DNAP OFFICE VISITS: #1- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=7976 #2- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=8423 BioPartnering Europe Conference Invitation- http://www.dnaprint.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=contentid=255 (posted by: vrholdings) Life and Molecular Medicine- http://209.52.189.2/article.cfm/molecular_medicine/31171 (NEWS ARTICLE PROVIDED BY: alzaco92) NEWS ANALYSIS FORT LAUDERDALE,(dbusiness.com)-- "Safe drugs that fit like a glove" (By Karen J. Cohen, dbusiness.com), Sep 01, 2000- http://www.ragingbull.altavista..com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=11203 NEWS ANALYSIS BALTIMORE, (LocalBusiness.com) -- "Adding DNA to the Rx mix" (By Ray Bolger, LocalBusiness.com), Sep 01, 2000- http://www.ragingbull.altavista.com/mboaard/boards.cgi?board=DNAPread=15981 CURRENT NEWS/PRESS RELEASE LINK- http://biz.yahoo.com/n/D/DNAP.html PRESS RELEASES: JUNE 30, 2000 (Press Release) Catalyst Communications, Inc. (Pink Sheets: "CLYC") announced today that it has signed a letter of intent to
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
Pete, Stephen Kent wrote: I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since RFcs are archival And I'll make a pithy counter-observation: if they're worth being referenced in an RFC (as "works-in-progress") then they're worth saving. We agree; an RFC ought not cite an I-D. IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a "work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful. Right. In any case, as Scott Bradner informed us, they will soon be available, so this is officially a moot point. ...But, I don't want to see them cited in some product marketing data sheet, further confusing folks who already are confused by the fact that all standards are RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards ... Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years. People do bad things. We can't prevent that, but we can avoid helping them by giving the imprimatur of the IETF to such behavior. Steve
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:22:33 -0400
From: Stephen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they
make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational
RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since
RFcs are archival.
See for example RFC 2549, "IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service".
I don't know if this was ever an Internet Draft, but it did make it
through the process.
However, many I-Ds do not make it through the
process and to archive them may seem to elevate them to a status that
they have not merited. ...
I don't think that quality (whatever that is in this context) is necessarily
a monotonically increasing function within the working group and Internet
Draft process. A number of good ideas (documented in Internet Drafts) have
been dropped because of programmer whine ("That's not what I implemented",
"It's too hard", "It will take too long", ...), rather than lack of
obvious "quality". Not all Internet Drafts that never became RFCs were
bad ideas -- some of them are good ideas that, for any number of reasons,
never made it through the process.
I think the cure (destroying old documents) is probably worse than the
problem (people referencing obviously draft or unofficial documents).
-tjs
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
RFCs should not be referencing I-Ds, imho. if they *do*, then something slipped through the cracks, imho. (if they do, i assume it is because during the RFC's pre-life as an I-D it referenced companion I-Ds and the companion either died some deserved death on its way to RFCdom, or the companion made it to RFCdom, but the citation was never updated.) PGP signature
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
At 07:14 PM 9/20/00 -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: It would be useful to have a semi-blessed location that one could be confident will be there five years from now, for all of the reasons in the "Cool URIs Don't Change" essay (http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI). Perhaps this is just a matter of the Roxen folks committing to keeping this as a permanent resource, and/or perhaps registering an appropriate domain such that it that raises the question of likelihood. how likely is it that Roxen will be around 10 or 20 years from now? how likely is it that an IETF Secretariat will be around 10-20 years from now? If we are going to have an archival facility, it needs to be run by a stable group with high probability of staying around. d/
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
Tim, The April fool's day RFCs aside, I agree that not all I-Ds that fail to make the cut as an RFC are inferior. However, there are many other venues for publishing technical material, many of which subject the material to review. An I-D that contains good material but fails to become an RFC has other ways to become archival, cite-able, etc. Steve
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
At 15:44 22/09/00, Pete Loshin wrote: IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a "work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful. Do such RFCs actually exist ? Do you have a specific example ? I don't know of any. I have always heard that the RFC Editor will not publish any document as an RFC if it tries to reference an Internet-Draft. Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years. We don't need to make the situation worse than it is. I agree with Steve Kent and Bob Braden. If folks don't want an RFC, they can always put their document out as a company Technical Report, on the web, and/or via many other methods. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
I have always heard that the RFC Editor will not publish any document as an RFC if it tries to reference an Internet-Draft. ^ normatively
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], RJ Atkinson w rites: At 15:44 22/09/00, Pete Loshin wrote: IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a "work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful. Do such RFCs actually exist ? Do you have a specific example ? I don't know of any. grep is your friend. (Most, but not all, of these are actual references in the References section.) RFC 1738 1753 1815 1889 1915 1943 1949 1999 2074 2084 2088 2150 2183 2189 2257 2301 2306 2360 2376 2411 2412 2416 2553 2585 2688 2731 2861 2882 --Steve Bellovin
Internet Mail Service spam
What am I supposed to understand from these missives, except that those
responsible should not have subscribed to the IETF's or any network or
computer professional mailing list? I've seen very similar messages from
some of these individuals many times over the last months months and I
think in one case, years.
These are only the first 7 vacation punishments for my note. I'll probably
receive a few more before they stop. A year ago, 1 or 2 vacation
punishments was a bad day. Now it's 7!
There are the 3Com junk, the far too familiar missive from Germany, and
the 5 "Internet Mail Service" spam.
How about automatically unsubscribing anyone who is so ignorant or uncaring
to use whatever MUA that adds the "X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service" header?
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BOUNCE: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
This email was automatically generated in response to your email to a
person whose address has changed (or perhaps has left 3Com).
Unfortunately, our mail server was unable to determine the recipient of
your message. The most likely cause for this is that the individual you
are trying to reach has left 3Com and did not leave any email forwarding
address.
- 3Com Postmaster
Postmaster note: syc@bouncer.
Your original message is included below, for reference.
...
...
] From: Ersue Mehmet ICM CA MS MI 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: An Internet Draft as reference material
] X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
]
] I am on vacation till 22/9/00 . I'll be checking my voicemail frequently.
]
] In urgent matters please contact Bernhard Petri
] ('[EMAIL PROTECTED]').
]
] Regards,
] Mehmet Ersue
] Regards,
] M. Ersü
] -(..)--
] ICM CA MS MI E2 / mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Phone: +49 89 722 31227Fax: 37649
] Mobile: 0172 / 8432301
...
From: "Worrall, Kevin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: An Internet Draft as reference material
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
I am on leave until the 23rd of September. Please contact Helen Cooke on
01926 416034 with any urgent requests.
Kevin
NOTICE TO USERS
The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be privileged.
If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not copy, forward,
disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any form whatsoever, or
take any action in reliance on its contents.
If you have received this e-mail in error please e-mail the author by
replying to this message and delete the material from your computer.
While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are
present in this e-mail, you are responsible for carrying out your own virus
checks and Crown Castle International does not accept responsibility for any
loss or damage thereby arising.
The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of Crown Castle
International. At present the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot
be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk.
All liability is excluded to the extent permitted by law for any claims
arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or
to Crown Castle International.
Visit Crown Castle International web site on: http://www.crowncastle.com
Visit the Third Generation Mobile Multimedia website at
http://www.3g-thefuture.com
...
] From: "Scott, Mike (RD)" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: An Internet Draft as reference material
] X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
]
] I'm out on holiday. I'll be back on Monday 2nd Oct
...
From: "Heilbronner, Stephen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
GROUP Delegate
Server: MS-M-01/SRV/M/DeTeSystem/DE
Stephen Heilbronner
Ich bin bis 22.9 nicht anwesend. Ihre Post wird nicht automatisch
weitergeleitet. In eiligen Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich bitte direkt an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ! Besten Dank! Stephen Heilbronner
__
...
] From: "Osei-kwaku, Lawrence" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: An Internet Draft as reference material
] X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
]
] I am out of the office from Thursday the 21st till Tuesday the 26
] September 2000.
] For Urgent technical support please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] quoting your case number in the subject header
]
] Kindest Regards
] Lawrence Osei-Kwaku
...
From: Sandy
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
At 10:33 PM 9/22/00 +, Bob Braden wrote: * If the patent office staff and patent infringement defense attorneys had * searchable access to the database of Internet Drafts, their jobs would bne * easier and the quality of their work would improve. In other words, the Lawyers Rule. Community *Need* Rules. As it is supposed to for the IETF. Lawyers do not initiate patents, nor do they initiate patent infringement cases. At 04:43 PM 9/22/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: That assumes facts not in evidence and even contrary to well known evidence. Defense attorneys would have only a somewhat easier time of I've no idea what "well known evidence" you are referring to. My experience is limited to 3 cases. In every one of them, easy access to the I-D archives would have reduced legal research effort (and therefore cost); in one case, the effect probably would have been quite substantial. it, but the outher side would gain even more. The defense can now ask around quietly to find prior art. However if the other guys know what "ask around" is usually very expensive. you're going to say, your case can be lost. A concrete example of that This is one of the more bizarre arguments against having public access to prior art that I can imagine. Keep it private so that the holders of the patent won't know you know about it??? That, of course, ignores the likelihood that it won't be discovered by the defense, either. If the information is readily public, it inherently reduces the ability to claim that the art is sufficient for a patent. If the patent office staff can't be bothered to check textbooks, do you Checking textbooks is different effort from an automated search of a data base. At that, the patent file histories I have seen do show that the patent folks occasionally do serious research, not just limited to patents. really expect them to figure out how to search a mass of text like 1000's of I-D's? If they issue patents on "hyper-light-speed" antennas (see http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06025810__ ), can you really expect them understand This line of logic competes with the earlier one, since it says we should make no effort to improve the information available to the patent office because they won't use it. (That' logic has been used, over the centuries, to claim that all sorts of groups should be deprived of information, education, and the like. It is an argument against change, essentially using a "this is the way it has always worked" basis. I favor of an IETF archive of I-D's, because the current ad hoc network of I-D archives is inconvenient to use and subject to manipulation. The Isn't it nice, the way entirely different views can lead to the same conclusion? And the nice thing about consensus is that it does not matter whether we agree on the underpinnings, as longs as we agree on the decision. d/
