Two (separable) comments/issues and an aside...
--On Wednesday, 22 February, 2006 17:18 -0600 "Stephen Hayes
(TX/EUS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Early permanent ID allocation is not something currently done
> in the IETF. Although there is already a potential
> requirement to do this, implementing it will imply yet another
> new potential requirement on the technical publisher.
>
> o Potential Req-INDEX-7 - When an permanent ID is allocated
> early, the technical publisher must provide a disclaimer and
> pointer in the index to resolve searches on that permanent ID.
> The post approval version of the draft must be stored until
> the document is published since it could expire before
> publication.
>
> The text of the disclaimer that comes up could be something
> like:
>
> "RFC xxxx is currently in publication. A preliminary version
> of this specification is available at <pointer to the draft>.
>...
The relevance of the Identifier, how it is assigned, etc., is a
current NEWTRK work item, embedded significantly in the "ISD"
work and somewhat so in the "SRD" work. Both would provide
alternate models to needing more disclaimers that, based on
historical experience, would probably be generally ignored.
Until and unless NEWTRK is terminated and a plausible
disposition made of its outstanding tasks, it seems
inappropriate to me for this non-chartered effort to reach
conclusions in this area other than, possibly, to make
recommendations to NEWTRK.
> It is also recommended that the technical publisher retains
> control of the allocation of permanent identifiers. This is
> especially true when multiple organizations (IESG, IAB, IRTF)
> share a single identifier sequence. One way that this might
> work is for the IESG to request "publication" or "publication
> with early allocation"
Please separate this into a separate issue. To the extent to
which we are going to maintain multiple sets of numbers, some of
which apply to subsets of the others, the standards-track
reference ID (currently STD, but its assignment only to Full
Standards is another NEWTRK issue) and other reference IDs
should arguably be controlled directly by some IASA-associated
entity or contractor that is different from the technical
publisher. I understand this effort to be defining a "technical
publisher" role. If that role is to be one of a publisher,
rather than having broader standards-management functions, then
we had better be _very_ careful about what the IDs are and who
assigns them.
And, again, who assigns the identifier is a very different issue
from when that identifier is assigned.
john
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
