Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote: At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? [...] The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be maintained by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ I'm asking Jari to Last Call it along with a status change for STD 1 (RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of the history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate document, that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be Historic is something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The above document solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested in the document being updated anymore. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
I am having trouble understanding this discussion. If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00 standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and emitting the result as an RFC?
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote: At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? [...] The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be maintained by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ FWIW, I've reviewed your draft and have three comments: (1) You are to be complemented on its length and complexity. (2) I agree that the core issue belongs to the IETF, and IETF Stream, issue, not the RFC Editor and/or IAB. (3) I far prefer this approach to the more complex and convoluted RFC Editor draft. If we really need to do something formally here (about which I still have some small doubts), then let's make it short, focused, and to the point. Your draft appears to accomplish those goals admirably. john
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
Hi Pete, At 12:01 20-08-2013, Pete Resnick wrote: The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be maintained by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ I read the draft. I agree with what is written above. I'm asking Jari to Last Call it along with a status change for STD 1 (RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of the history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate document, that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be Historic is something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The above document solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested in the document being updated anymore. I support moving the draft to Last Call as it solves the problem. Regards, -sm
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
On 8/20/13 3:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00 standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and emitting the result as an RFC? I'm sure that such a tool could be created. To date, I believe the document was being built by hand. However, the document hasn't been produced in over 5 years and nobody seems to miss it. The RFC Editor has indicated that they're not enthusiastic about keeping the document up to date given that there's a web page with that information that is getting good use. So the thinking behind the document I submitted was, Let the RFC Editor off the hook. We, the IETF, don't need the RFC published separately anymore, so we should just say that. I suppose if there's a real resurgence of sentiment that the RFC Editor should keep producing that document, we can tell the IAB that the IETF still really wants that document produced and send them off to write a tool that queries their database and auto-creates the RFC. In the absence of such sentiment, I think we should just use the web-based database and clean up the STD series as stated. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
On 8/20/2013 3:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote: At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? [...] The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be maintained by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ I'm asking Jari to Last Call it along with a status change for STD 1 (RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of the history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate document, that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be Historic is something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The above document solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested in the document being updated anymore. pr I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions. What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were they ever formally retired? After rfcxx00 is retired, can the RFC editor start using both xx99 and xx00 as normal RFC numbers? I'm not saying that Pete Tony Hansen
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
On 8/20/13 4:21 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions. What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were they ever formally retired? That's not an IETF matter. There's no STD on this. There's nothing (AFAICT) in a BCP about this. So nothing for the IETF to do. After rfcxx00 is retired, can the RFC editor start using both xx99 and xx00 as normal RFC numbers? Again, entirely up to the RFC Editor. The IETF never documented that particular numbers would be used for such purposes; that's entirely an RFC Editor convention (again, AFAICT). pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: [IAB] Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
SM: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026: 'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards.' My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? This seems to require coordination with the General Area Director. I suggest that you ask Jari. From Section 3: This document formally retires STD 1. Identifier STD 1 will not be re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is resumed). The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if there is a future need. I suggest removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1. I tend to agree. I think the point is that STD 1 will not take on another meaning. Russ
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
--On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026: 'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards.' My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? SM, You have just identified another aspect of why I find this document troubling. I note that requirement of RFC 2026 has not been satisfied for years unless one interprets periodically as consistent with whenever we get around to it, which, in today's age, is likely to be never. I note that the last version of STD 1 was RFC 5000, published in May 2008 and that its predecessor was RFC 3700 in July 2004, i.e., there was a four year interval followed by at least a seven year one. That is well outside most normal interpretations of periodic. I don't personally think it is worth it (or, more specifically, think the resources could be better spent in other ways) but, if one believed the keep anything that might turn out to be historically important theme of the IETF 86 History BOF, then there is value in maintaining the sort of comprehensive status snapshot that STD 1 was supposed to provide (once its [other] original purpose of being part of a report to the sponsor became irrelevant) even if that snapshot is taken only once every few years. That aside, I think this document is almost completely unnecessary. RFC 5000 already points to the HTML version of the RFC index as the authority for contemporary information. There has, as far as I know, never been a requirement that STD 1 be issued as RFCs numbered NN00, nor that all such numbers be reserved for that purpose, outside the internal conventions of the RFC Editor function. At the same time, if the IAB and RSE believe that assembling and publishing this statement formally and in the RFC Series is a good use of their time and that of the community, I think it is basically harmless, _unless_ it becomes an opportunity to nit-pick such questions as its relationship to requirements or statements in 2026 or elsewhere. From Section 3: This document formally retires STD 1. Identifier STD 1 will not be re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is resumed). The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if there is a future need. I suggest removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1. This is another form of the nit-picking (if there were protocols involved, the historical term would involve the phrase protocol lawyer) that concerns me. I don't remember where it is written down (if at all), but the RFC Editor has had a firm rule ever since I can remember that STD numbers are never reused for a different topic. Violating that prohibition against reuse would be a really stupid move on the part of the RFC Editor and/or the IAB. If they were to be that stupid, we have much more serious other problems. If they are going to continue to avoid that sort of stupidity, then that part of the statement above is completely unnecessary - but still harmless. As far as removing the option is concerned, I think doing so would be pointless if the rest of the statement remains. For better or worse, anything that is written into one RFC by the IAB (or, under different circumstances, the IETF) can be amended out of it by another RFC. While I think it unlikely, I can imagine at least one scenario, tied to the historical concern above, under which we would resume publishing a snapshot. Whether the IAB has considered it or not and whatever promises this document does or does not make are irrelevant to whether or not that would happen. Summary: I think the RFC Series Editor should just make whatever announcement she feels it is appropriate to make, recognizing that we stopped regularly updating STD 1 long ago and have no present intention of restarting. I think this document and the process and associated work it imposes on the IAB and the community are a waste of time that could be better used in other ways.However, if they feel some desire to publish it in some form, let's encourage them to just get it done and move on rather than consuming even more time on issues that will make no difference in the long term. best, john
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
I think that if we worried about every minor deviation from RFC 2026, we would be here for a long time and wasting most of it. I have no particular objection to publishing the draft. Regards Brian Carpenter (who tried and failed - see draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-practice, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes) On 17/08/2013 06:44, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026: 'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards.' My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? SM, You have just identified another aspect of why I find this document troubling. I note that requirement of RFC 2026 has not been satisfied for years unless one interprets periodically as consistent with whenever we get around to it, which, in today's age, is likely to be never. I note that the last version of STD 1 was RFC 5000, published in May 2008 and that its predecessor was RFC 3700 in July 2004, i.e., there was a four year interval followed by at least a seven year one. That is well outside most normal interpretations of periodic. I don't personally think it is worth it (or, more specifically, think the resources could be better spent in other ways) but, if one believed the keep anything that might turn out to be historically important theme of the IETF 86 History BOF, then there is value in maintaining the sort of comprehensive status snapshot that STD 1 was supposed to provide (once its [other] original purpose of being part of a report to the sponsor became irrelevant) even if that snapshot is taken only once every few years. That aside, I think this document is almost completely unnecessary. RFC 5000 already points to the HTML version of the RFC index as the authority for contemporary information. There has, as far as I know, never been a requirement that STD 1 be issued as RFCs numbered NN00, nor that all such numbers be reserved for that purpose, outside the internal conventions of the RFC Editor function. At the same time, if the IAB and RSE believe that assembling and publishing this statement formally and in the RFC Series is a good use of their time and that of the community, I think it is basically harmless, _unless_ it becomes an opportunity to nit-pick such questions as its relationship to requirements or statements in 2026 or elsewhere. From Section 3: This document formally retires STD 1. Identifier STD 1 will not be re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is resumed). The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if there is a future need. I suggest removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1. This is another form of the nit-picking (if there were protocols involved, the historical term would involve the phrase protocol lawyer) that concerns me. I don't remember where it is written down (if at all), but the RFC Editor has had a firm rule ever since I can remember that STD numbers are never reused for a different topic. Violating that prohibition against reuse would be a really stupid move on the part of the RFC Editor and/or the IAB. If they were to be that stupid, we have much more serious other problems. If they are going to continue to avoid that sort of stupidity, then that part of the statement above is completely unnecessary - but still harmless. As far as removing the option is concerned, I think doing so would be pointless if the rest of the statement remains. For better or worse, anything that is written into one RFC by the IAB (or, under different circumstances, the IETF) can be amended out of it by another RFC. While I think it unlikely, I can imagine at least one scenario, tied to the historical concern above, under which we would resume publishing a snapshot. Whether the IAB has considered it or not and whatever promises this document does or does not make are irrelevant to whether or not that would happen. Summary: I think the RFC Series Editor should just make whatever announcement she feels it is appropriate to make, recognizing that we stopped regularly updating
Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026: 'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards.' My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that? From Section 3: This document formally retires STD 1. Identifier STD 1 will not be re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is resumed). The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now. The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if there is a future need. I suggest removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1. Regards, -sm
Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database
This is a call for review of List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ The Call for Review will last until 11 September 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
