Subject: Fwd: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:32:50 -0800

I think you get the message from the RFC Editor below.

I need a new version of this document.

    Patrik
    Co-Area Director, Applications Area

>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>From: [email-masked]
>Posted-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05
>Cc: [email-masked]
>
>
>
>Ned, Patrik, IESG folks,
>
>I have been wrestling with bad URL links in this document.  While the
>authors have been very helpful in tracking down live links to replace
>the cited bad links, I have come upon an additional problem with this
>RFC-to-be.
>
>Laced throughout this document are pointers and citations to
>Internet-Drafts.  This includes full <draft-blah-blah.0*.txt> strings.
>Many of them noted as "expired" I-Ds AND also noted as the
>"Authoritative reference" in each descriptive section.  At first, I
>attempted to replace any "draft" type mention with "work in progress",
>which is our practice.  I am afraid that in this particular case, it is
>too much!
>
>Since we still have the "rule" about not citing/pointing to
>Internet-Drafts in RFCs, does the IESG and relevant Area Directors
>still agree that this document should go forward in its current state?
>
>Thanks!  Joyce

---

From: Ian Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:43:29 -0800

I'm a little miffed that this issue took so long to come to light, but I'm 
also wondering whether there's a relatively quick fix.

My reading of the draft finds 6 references to internet drafts (I'm ignoring 
the KP document):
   [3] WPAD
   [4] CARP
   [7] Ivan Lovric's ICP extensions
   [13] WCCPv1.0
   [16] Goutard & Lovric's satellite pre-filling
   [21] NECP

Of those [3], [4] and [13] are protocols that are in use in the real 
Internet today.  And those drafts (which we attempted to archive for this 
specific reason - note that the URLs do *not* point to the IETF 
repositories) are the only publicly available documentation (if you know 
differently then please let me know!).  Cisco published the specification 
for WCCPv2 earlier this year, but I haven't seen any discussion about it.

Is the fix to simply make the filenames/references look less like 
internet-drafts and just keep them in their current locations?  (For those 
wondering about RFC2026 section 10 stuff, all allow derivative works.)

Working through the draft, as the problem references arise:

Section 6.3 - CARP - Supported in commercial and free (and rather well 
used) products.  Needs mentioning, needs a reference.

Section 6.4 - WPAD - MSIE supports it, and I know of several ISPs that use 
it.  Needs mentioning, needs a reference.  (There's a re-submitted version 
in the ID queue right now.)

Section 7.1.1 - ICP - references [7] as an extension, not as an 
authoritative reference.  Shouldn't really be a problem?

Section 7.1.4 - Cache pre-filling via satellite - Get rid of the 
authoritative reference (there isn't one, I guess) and add it as a note?

Section 7.2.1 - CARP (again)

Section 8.1 - WCCP - Deployed in rather a few Cisco products and many 
caching proxy vendors' products.  Needs mentioning, needs a reference.

Section 8.2 - NECP - Interest seems to have waned, though I know of some 
folks who are interested in it and are using it in some way.  Should be 
mentioned, needs a reference.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:53:34 -0800

At 15.43 -0800 00-11-15, Ian Cooper wrote:
>internet-drafts and just keep them in their current locations?

I would say, less like URL's. The URL is not persistent enough. The 
URL can be there, but a way is needed to find the data when the URL 
is no longer valid and correct.

    paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:04:24 -0800

>is no longer valid and correct.

That response only covered one of the problems.

The problem with referencing I-D's are that I-D's are temporary while 
RFC's are static. Because of this, we write out the name of the I-D 
together with "Work in progress" string, and do so only for 
non-normative references.

If you have normative references, you have to have a more static name 
than the name of an I-D, or rather, to a more static object than an 
I-D.

    Patrik