ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RFC levels and I-D "levels"

2009-11-13 06:42:54
Hi everyone,

I'd like to support the notion that standards levels for RFCs simply do not 
matter. In my own domain (IPsec), we try to spend time on keeping the protocol 
viable (by adding useful stuff and trying to avoid cruft) rather than working 
on mostly pointless PS->DS->FS projects. Whether we're doing a good job is for 
others to judge...

On the other hand, I think we're not doing well on the other side of the 
spectrum, Internet Drafts. The industry and even other SDOs (3GPP is a case in 
point) are too happy to implement expired drafts, which as we know may be lower 
quality, less secure, and/or non-interoperable. In fact in recent years we have 
made it even easier to access and use long expired drafts, and this is hurting 
us. I'd like to make two related proposals to deal with this issue:

-          Make the "tools" URL for an I-D into the mainstream way to access 
I-Ds. Specifically, include this URL in the I-D announcement mail. This would 
have the benefit of pointing people to related RFCs and to relevant IPR 
statements.
-          Only non-expired drafts should be directly accessible from the tools 
area, or in fact have a stable IETF URL. Expired drafts will still be kept 
around, but will require a (freely available) "tools" login. So non-IETFers 
will have to spend 5 minutes' effort to reach them.

This would go a long way towards having I-Ds as temporary documents, like they 
used to be, while still letting us work with the old documents when necessary.

Thanks,
            Yaron
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>