John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
<sant9442(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
FWIW, I was wondering which BIS documents with no RFC
publication dates would be candidates. 93 total.
Based on the first few, there are a bunch of errors in your
list.
Yes, just imported into SQL database what Jari provided for the raw
data and for the output shown below, the SQL query was:
SELECT
draft,
initdate,
datediff(Now(),initdate) as days,
revs,
cstate
FROM idpub
WHERE rfcdate = "0000-00-00" AND draft like "%bis%"
ORDER by days;
Sure, there seems to have some book keeping aging in the data. i.e.
duplicate records or new ones not replacing others (hence the dupes
you saw), verifying some of the drafts with the actual, some had real
revisions but the revision count field was 0.
I just wanted to give a rough output of those labeled as bis but did
not have a RFC publishing date, sorted by the number of days from
start to today.
I'd think the likely candidates of this type would be
documents that have been approved, or are near approval, for
Draft Standard. The more interesting case would be documents
like 5321. There is no question about either interoperability
or wide deployment and use, but, given outstanding errata, the
list of proposed changes in the YAM preevaluation document, and
other issues that have come up, I doubt that there would be
consensus for moving the existing document to full standard. On
the other hand, this change does not increase the motivation to
do more work on it and may decrease it, so it is, as I said, and
interesting case.
I would assume those documents that have been in the IESG hands will
get flushed out quickly.
For example, lets used DKIM, a query of:
select draft,
initdate,
iesgdays as iesg,
datediff(Now(),initdate) as days,
rfcdate,
revs, cstate
from idpub
where draft like "%dkim%"
order by days;
Produces:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT INITDATE IESG DAYS RFCDATE
REVS CSTATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
draft-crocker-dkim-doseta 2011-01-13 114 241
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-crocker-dkim-rfc4871bis-doseta 2011-01-13 114 241
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis 2010-08-16 304 391
0000-00-00 3 RFC Ed Queue
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists 2010-05-08 344 491
0000-00-00 2 RFC Ed Queue
draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint 2009-02-12 180 941
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata 2009-01-26 87 958
2009-08-27 3 RFC Published
draft-hallambaker-dkim-extensions 2008-07-02 196 1166
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting 2007-12-03 468 1378
0000-00-00 0 AD is watching
draft-ietf-dkim-deployment 2007-11-11 716 1400
2010-06-01 2 RFC Published
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements 2006-08-10 317 1858
2007-10-17 1 RFC Published
draft-hallambaker-dkimpolicy 2006-06-22 180 1907
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-overview 2006-06-22 857 1907
2009-07-08 2 RFC Published
draft-fenton-dkim-threats 2005-09-28 2136 2174
0000-00-00 0 Dead
draft-ietf-dkim-threats 2005-09-28 102 2174
2006-10-04 1 RFC Published
draft-dkim-pkix 2005-09-09 185 2193
0000-00-00 0 ID Exists
draft-ietf-dkim-base 2005-07-12 225 2252
2007-05-28 5 RFC Published
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp 2005-07-12 452 2252
2009-08-12 4 RFC Published
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With my familiarity with DKIM, the above seems to reflect pretty close
to the history. I venture among those
yet to be published but in the hands of the IESG, seem to be good
candidates.
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis I expect this one for sure
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists Maybe
draft-crocker-dkim-doseta don't know enough about it but
its Crocker :)
draft-crocker-dkim-rfc4871bis-doseta don't know enough about it but
its Crocker :)
draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint don't know enough about it
draft-hallambaker-dkim-extensions I don't recall this one
draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting Seems like a moving target, so
don't know.
and these probably not.
draft-hallambaker-dkimpolicy POLICY is a deadly sin for DKIM!
draft-dkim-pkix don't know enough about it.
All pure SWAGGING on my part.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf