Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:07:45 +0100

At 13:27 21/08/99 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>In fact it is really quite recent that an an RFC was required to first be 
>an I-D.  Previosly only standards-track (status) RFCs were required to 
>first be I-Ds.

It is my perception that I-Ds today perform a function similar to that
originally intended for the RFC series -- i.e. the timely dissemination of
ideas without delays imposed by a need for some level of "polish".

Am I wrong?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 06:57:21 -0700

>ideas without delays imposed by a need for some level of "polish".

seems correct to me.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 06:57:21 -0700

seems correct to me.

d/

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:52:34 -0700

Graham,

>ideas without delays imposed by a need for some level of "polish".

I disagree.  RFC's were (and continue to be) always reviewed by the RFC
editor.  There are IDs that are being published (usually as individual
submissions) that would have never been published as RFCs.  The RFC editor
does exercise editorial judgement.  This does not happen for IDs.

Bob

p.s. Maybe the best feature of IDs, is that they timeout after 6 months!

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:52:34 -0700

Graham,

Bob

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:50:24 -0700

>>ideas without delays imposed by a need for some level of "polish".

I almost agree. I-Ds also have a definite lifetime.  The popular 
perception (for better or worse) is that an RFC is a standard.  So if 
the IETF wants a permanent record of an I-D that is not a standard, 
calling it an RFC invites public confusion.

Perhaps we can change public perception of what an RFC is.  I think 
that is far too expensive, and a waste of our time and resources.  In 
this case, I'm willing to accept the common wisdom, and call 
permanent papers that aren't intended to become standards something 
else.  This would do a considerable service to the public outside the 
IETF, as well as reduce our own angst about what to do with documents 
that should not be considered to be Internet standards.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The man that can most truly be accounted brave is he who best
   knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible,
   and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
   -- Pericles, "Funeral Oration", 479 B.C.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:50:24 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:19:13 -0400

A lot of the value of the RFC series is that it is fairly comprehensive.
As a result of the policy of allowing non-standard (but high-quality) 
Internet protocol documents from any source to be published as RFCs, 
the RFC directory has become nearly a "one stop shopping" resource for 
Internet protocol specifications.  

This has in turn made it highly desirable for vendors to publish their 
protocols as RFCs.

This gives IETF some editorial influence over *how* those protocols are 
published.  For instance, IESG and/or the RFC Editor can say (pick one):

- we'd really like this to be a standard, why don't you (pick one):
	- hold a BOF at the next IETF, 
	- take this to the FOO working group,
	- submit this as an individual submission for Proposed Standard"

- we think this protocol would be harmful to the Internet if published
  in its current form, why don't you (pick one or more of the following):
	- document the security problems
	- improve the security
	- improve the scalability
	- fix this so that it behaves well in the face of network congestion

- your proposal is very similar to the proposal in XXX working group;
  we would prefer that you work with them on a proposal that can get 
  consensus rather than publishing your proposal in its current form, 
  at the present time
 
- we are willing to publish the document if you clarify a few things
  here and there

- we are willing to publish this document with an IESG note 

(and finally)

- we are not willing to publish this document

So having non-standards in the RFC series has actually been very valuable
for IETF, and I think, for the Internet community.  It helps us encourage
standardization, it helps bring interested parties together to work out
their differences, and it helps us encourage better documentation of 
protocols which are not destined to be standards.

A separate document series for non-standard documents would not appear 
to give us the same benefit.  We should think very carefully before we 
change this.

Keith

One thing I have proposed in the past but which didn't go over well then:
keep the RFC name for all documents that we publish, but add a designator
indicating whether or not it is a standards-track document.  So
RFC-PS-2345 would be a proposed standard RFC; RFC-I-2346 would be 
Informational, RFC-X-2347 would be Experimental, etc.  The main 
drawback would appear to be that we would occasionally have to deal 
with an out-of-date designator (when a document changed status).

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:19:13 -0400

(and finally)

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:54:53 -0700

At 09:50 AM 9/1/99 , John  W. Noerenberg wrote:
>perception (for better or worse) is that an RFC is a standard.  So if the 
>IETF wants a permanent record of an I-D that is not a standard, calling it 
>an RFC invites public confusion.

Logically, yes, it does invite it.  And some people do take the invitation.

But I would ask that we spend some effort characterizing how serious the 
REAL problem is, rather than looking at it from an information theoretic view.

There has been some confusion all along.  We've done fine.

Is it really that much worse, now?  What's the basis for thinking so?

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:54:53 -0700

d/

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:35:14 -0700

>with an out-of-date designator (when a document changed status).

This is a interesting idea.  It acheives the goal of distinctly 
naming a class of documents.  The problem I have with this is that 
instead of simplifying the label, it makes it more complex.  I think 
that is an obstacle to understanding the label.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:35:14 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:12:14 -0400

> instead of simplifying the label, it makes it more complex. 

yes it does.  but having separate names for each series of documents
is even more complex for the reader.  having a single letter 
indicating status seems fairly intuitive, while preserving the idea 
of a single document series.

mind you, I don't think any of this will make much difference in how 
ietf documents get reported in the press, since the press rarely
mentions an RFC number.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:12:14 -0400

Keith

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:59:11 -0700

>Logically, yes, it does invite it.  And some people do take the invitation.

It is not hard to find examples.  I'm surprised that more haven't 
taken Pete's challenge.  It took me 20 minutes to find one.  I won't 
cite it here, because causing embarrassment serves no useful purpose.

The nature of PR is to cast the best possible light on an 
organization's work.  It is well within the ethics of PR to use 
public perception to one's advantage.  We cannot get around the fact 
that the common wisdom is that something known as an RFC is an 
Internet standard.  We ourselves are guilty of helping to create that 
perception.

>
>But I would ask that we spend some effort characterizing how serious 
>the REAL problem is, rather than looking at it from an information 
>theoretic view.
>

The REAL problem is that increasing scrutiny of IETF publications 
without changing perception of RFC as Standard will ultimately render 
all RFCs meaningless as long as some RFCs are not standards.  As the 
population of the Internet grows, more and more public examination of 
the IETF is inevitable.

Public examination is a very good thing.  It insures public 
accountability for our actions.  It behooves us to make our actions 
as broadly understandable as possible.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:59:11 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:10:54 +0100

Keith,
I agree with you to a point, but the underlying
"prefixed code" is a good reference which the
press willl always mis-interpret (its good copy as
they say to be controversial).

The simplification of the label would remove a
mojority of the mis-interpretations of the RFC's
and reduce the need to re-explain them constantly.

Thats my 2cents worth for what its worth!!

Regards

Mark Paton CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng
Mercury Network Systems Limited
http://www.mnsl.org

"Mercury Network Systems - The Unstoppable Force"

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 03 September 1999 18:12
To: John W. Noerenberg
Cc: Keith Moore; Dave Crocker; Graham
Klyne; Lloyd Wood; Scott Bradner;
[email-masked]; ietf-press-clues
Subject: Re: Working documents repository

> instead of simplifying the label, it
makes it more complex.

yes it does.  but having separate names
for each series of documents
is even more complex for the reader.
having a single letter
indicating status seems fairly intuitive,
while preserving the idea
of a single document series.

mind you, I don't think any of this will
make much difference in how
ietf documents get reported in the press,
since the press rarely
mentions an RFC number.

Keith

-
This message was passed through
[email-masked], which
is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all
messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely
by Harald Alvestrand.

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:10:54 +0100

Keith,

Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 03 September 1999 18:12
To: John W. Noerenberg
Cc: Keith Moore; Dave Crocker; Graham

Keith

-

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:16:12 -0700

>and reduce the need to re-explain them constantly.

Not having to distinguish between RFCs that are standards and RFCs 
that are not, reduces ambiguity which saves time and effort for 
readers and writers alike.  When time is all you have to spend, 
saving time for thinking about what an RFC is for (or BCP, I-D, etc) 
is an advantage.

For each reader and each writer, the individual effort saved may be 
small.  But when you scale it to the size of the Internet, the payoff 
is,well, global.

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:16:12 -0700