Subject: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)

John,

RFC 2026 says:

  *>    The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet
  *>    Official Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status
  *>    of all Internet protocol and service specifications.
  *> 

and you wrote:

  *> So, we no longer remove documents from the I-D directory when
  *> the Protocol Action notice is issued and the RFC Editor
  *> notified.  We don't have the Internet Society Newsletter
  *> contemplated by the second paragraph, so it can't be the
  *> "publication of record".  And we have dropped STD0001 as a
  *> frequently-updated publication.
  *>  

The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated daily.
And we recently published a "periodic" version as an RFC, over some
people's dead bodies, I might add.

Bob Braden

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:12:38 -0400

--On Thursday, 02 October, 2008 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> and you wrote:
> 
>   *> So, we no longer remove documents from the I-D directory
> when   *> the Protocol Action notice is issued and the RFC
> Editor   *> notified.  We don't have the Internet Society
> Newsletter   *> contemplated by the second paragraph, so it
> can't be the   *> "publication of record".  And we have
> dropped STD0001 as a   *> frequently-updated publication.
>   *>  
> 
> The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated
> daily. And we recently published a "periodic" version as an
> RFC, over some people's dead bodies, I might add.

Bob,

In large measure because of the health risks associated with
leaving dead bodies lying around the landscape and, as I
suggested in my response to Dave, a desire to avoid recruiting a
corps of rat hole diggers and passing out shovels, I would like
to avoid the question of whether that daily update is actually
STD 1 or just another form of the "RFC Index".   Because 2026
permits the association of the "Standard" designation (and the
associated STD number) only with published RFCs that have gone
through IETF Last Call, with consensus determination by the
IESG, and specifically refers to STD1 as an RFC, I think the
claim that the dynamic online document is the actual STD1 is
dubious at best.

Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
running on the waiting period.  I think that would violate
common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
waiting period between IESG action and RFC publication.   I
think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,
but, again, not a place I want to go.

     john

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:03:36 -0400 (EDT)

> think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,

as does the editor of 2026

Scott

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:39:43 +0200

> people's dead bodies, I might add.

I'm not sure wether you refer to:
   http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/iabmins.2008-04-16.html#3

But the reference seems relevant to the thread.

--Olaf (who happens to like zombie movies)

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:58:15 -0700

Scott
The 60 day difference can be used by anyone concerned to file protests over 
IP issues and this is VERY important since when the iParadigm matter comes 
back before the US Appellate Court (I bet Jorge is quaking already), it will 
set standards which will also apply directly to the IETF and its 'process of 
induced IP Theft' that this WG calls 'a contribution'.  The case is due for 
oral arguments in December of 2008 so you will have an answer on this pretty 
quickly.

I strongly suggest that the 60 day waiting period be kept in place since it 
allows for any number of oversight issues to be addressed in the publication 
of any IETF IP.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

> as does the editor of 2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008 
7:46 AM

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:02:30 -0400

> But the reference seems relevant to the thread.

This is an interesting conclusion, since this "Informational"
and "Independent Stream" document is identified in RFC 2026 as
_the_ authority on the status of various documents wrt the
standards track.

That interesting conclusion would transition to being fairly
humorous if the IESG, pursuant to its interpretation of RFC
3932, were to ask (or insist) that the RFC Editor include a
statement, either inline or by reference, that asserted that the
IETF had not reviewed the document and disclaimed any knowledge
for its fitness for any purpose.

In deference to a recent note received off list, I will not
explain on-list where this reasoning takes us, nor suggest what
needs to be done about it.  I will not...  I will not...

    john

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:14:03 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Olaf Kolkman" <[email-masked]>; "Bob Braden" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

> for its fitness for any purpose.

This opens the IETF to litigation based on its 'intentionally looking the 
other way' since this will also effect patentability of the IP produced.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 10/3/2008 
8:18 AM