Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:13:59 -0400

IESG,

My apologies for not noticing this until now -- I was
concentrating on the content of the document, which seemed fine,
so failed to notice.

So a quick question: What is the justification for classifying
this as a Proposed Standard?    The I-D does not change the FTP
specification or the underlying technical content of any other
document.  Nothing in it appears to be either a Technical
Specification or an Applicability Statement as defined in RFC
2026.  It is strictly about IETF procedures and updating
references.

As a thought experiment to help illustrate the question,
consider how this document would meet the criteria for
advancement to Internet Standard, something that ought, in
principle, be possible for any Proposed Standard.

As a specification about how the IETF does business and where it
keeps documents, it would seem appropriate as a BCP.  The one
strong argument I can see for making it a Proposed Standard is
that only actual standards track documents should be able to
update other standards track documents.  But, when I (and
others) have raised that issue in the past, we have been told
that there was ample precedent for the use of BCPs to update
even the technical contact of standards track documents.  

At least according to what I see in the datatracker, this
question did not come up during the IESG review either.

So, again apologizing for just noticing this and the lateness of
the comment, I think an explanation is in order and/or perhaps a
pre-publication change to BCP.

I hope this can be resolved informally and efficiently but, if
that is not possible, please treat this note as an appeal of the
decision to approve this document with that status.

    john

--On Friday, October 22, 2021 12:50 -0700 The IESG
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service'
>   (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt) as Proposed
> Standard
> 
> This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the
> product of an IETF Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact person is Éric Vyncke.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-poi
> nters/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
>    The IETF FTP service running at ftp.ietf.org, ops.ietf.org
> and    ietf.org will be retired.  A number of published RFCs
> in the IETF and    IAB streams include URIs that reference
> this FTP service.  To ensure    that the materials referenced
> using the IETF FTP service can still be    found, this
> document updates the FTP-based references in these    affected
> documents with HTTPS URIs.
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
>    This is an AD sponsored document.  It was discussed with
> the IESG and went through the IETF Last Call procedure with
> some comments, which should be addressed by the author before
> the actual ballot.
> 
> Document Quality
> 
>    Multiple reviews have been done and the tools team agrees
> with the content.
> 
> Personnel
> 
>    Éric Vyncke is the responsible AD.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 23:27:16 +0000

Hi John!

Thanks for the review.  More inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 5:14 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>; rfc-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the IETF FTP Service' to
> Proposed Standard (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt)

[snip]
 
> this as a Proposed Standard?
 
[snip]

> At least according to what I see in the datatracker, this question did not come
> up during the IESG review either.

[snip]

> I
> think an explanation is in order and/or perhaps a pre-publication change to
> BCP.

This question came up even earlier than IESG review, in IETF Last Call:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/oMhqRigr4nbRSMll5NY4zXpZu20/

Regards,
Roman

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:01:39 -0400

Roman,

Thanks for the quick reply.  
Given that the answer is the one from the referenced email
transaction (for the benefit of others, 

	"The reasoning that motivated this document being PS was
	that it was updating other PS documents.  No more nuance
	than that."  )

I am really happy about that -- it is, fwiw, the conclusion I
would have reached and the argument I would have made.  I think
a sentence to that effect somewhere in the document (or at least
the datatracker) would have been helpful.  The current Abstract
and Introduction effectively make the point that no technical
changes are involved, but that is not explicit and not bound to
the idea of a standards track document.  However, given that the
IESG has already processed the document, I'm not convinced that
would be worth the trouble now to make that sort of change.

_However_, I do expect the IESG to be consistent.  While it
probably is not worth the trouble to go back and identify and
reclassify earlier examples, I assume we will not see documents
that make substantive technical modifications to, or alter the
requirements of, standards track Technical Specifications
published as BCPs in the future.

thanks again,
   john

--On Friday, October 22, 2021 23:27 +0000 Roman Danyliw
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG
>> <[email-masked]>; rfc- [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the
>> IETF FTP Service' to Proposed Standard
>> (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt)
> 
> [snip]
>  
>> think an explanation is in order and/or perhaps a