From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Tue Apr 3 12:39:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488BB12D864 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kR3YHOdqgEfp for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CB68126DFF for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1C8B8357C; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8264B8357C for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TcygY4-twmT for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66729B8357B for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8D81C9EF7 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pMpuQ8nhu1YF for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (c-73-181-135-61.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [73.181.135.61]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BB0C1C9E80 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT) References: <152278418328.22731.17059789808713245501.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <152278418328.22731.17059789808713245501.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:39:16 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <152278418328.22731.17059789808713245501.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: [rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9040878756393658845==" Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Sender: "rfc-interest" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============9040878756393658845== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1E04AAC1FDC808A4550C29A5" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1E04AAC1FDC808A4550C29A5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, A revised draft for 7322bis has been posted. This mostly touches on references, adding a section on referencing online code repositories and changing references to Internet Drafts. One note about the online code repositories. I like the idea of a more specific date/time stamp, but we'll need to make some changes to both the vocabulary and the tools in order to make this happen. "Day Month Year" is as granular as we can go at this time. Feedback is always welcome! -Heather -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 12:36:23 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: RFC Editor , Heather Flanagan , Sandy Ginoza A new version of I-D, draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Heather Flanagan and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-flanagan-7322bis Revision: 03 Title: RFC Style Guide Document date: 2018-04-03 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 28 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-7322bis/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-flanagan-7322bis-03 Abstract: This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide". Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --------------1E04AAC1FDC808A4550C29A5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,

A revised draft for 7322bis has been posted. This mostly touches on references, adding a section on referencing online code repositories and changing references to Internet Drafts.

One note about the online code repositories. I like the idea of a more specific date/time stamp, but we'll need to make some changes to both the vocabulary and the tools in order to make this happen. "Day Month Year" is as granular as we can go at this time.

Feedback is always welcome!

-Heather

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 12:36:23 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>, Sandy Ginoza <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>



A new version of I-D, draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Heather Flanagan and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-flanagan-7322bis
Revision: 03
Title: RFC Style Guide
Document date: 2018-04-03
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 28
URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-7322bis/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-flanagan-7322bis-03

Abstract:
This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions
and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It
captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance
regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is
captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that
guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide.
This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide".



Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

--------------1E04AAC1FDC808A4550C29A5-- --===============9040878756393658845== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest --===============9040878756393658845==-- From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Thu Apr 12 15:03:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA94A12D80E for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WPakqPtJkd4A for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3034212D77C for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F21AB8240A; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E6AB8240A for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n_Sw2qzc7u1p for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E39B82409 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3CM3BhX080900 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:03:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <7adbf2cd-872c-2ebc-79d5-259c57bcc471@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:03:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Subject: [rfc-i] Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress" X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Sender: "rfc-interest" RFC 2026 (BCP 9) currently has the following text regarding the phrasing that is to be used when referring to internet drafts: Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a complete and understandable document with or without the reference to the "Work in Progress". In practice, not all internet drafts are still "in progress," although there may still be value in referring to their contents. At the request of the RFC Editor, I have put together a very small document that amends RFC 2026 to allow referring to such documents using the more accurate term "Internet Draft." Please see , and provide feedback on this mailing list. Thanks! /a _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Thu Apr 12 16:46:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158AC126CBF for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsLgoZLede8F for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6884A124D6C for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C505B8284E; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C01B8284E for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arCkCFSZzeKY for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2301B8284D for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id p6so5165687pfn.4 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uwcbARM/F6JxdAwqE6tQ8+SiLI/keCmy9v9O0Ng7oyQ=; b=k37nj2RB4Bs/xTt73vmaxkB+1jxD/llxgyhVKgRsudCbCPddXt5MZs3Rc9F7Upbl1q tJH6TT/oNUXdgganwlp9pFXobp2fu2dEQAQ2fBbbl0PrubGbaQzObghI7KNFdiEu4Muv eWXDO5sN/NrzadYqnkwlYgn8ItIylByMGombpC9PQ+UoWPPKjlLsdPuEYOlrEPI6+J/C eQZoPmN1D9JKNepTHYPQg1qY4OzZ/+Vw6oxit0xBfSIVzTBf5oPF8eSx+Y9y6n7zalou Q8OrQ26QBtgKUBbQzRI16c93/c1TOj+Bd2EM0ld8I3xP20MrO0LQQaPhRsdIswFbNvQ8 qR2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uwcbARM/F6JxdAwqE6tQ8+SiLI/keCmy9v9O0Ng7oyQ=; b=B0u2Ldx+RdP+CSBXkU8dWhj/x03A1Hu7gHO3v6jkXbf1AXZBwiL8EmzIi3bj+x9r/F 1+DTKIQ45usoc342Y211ASVe4fIGgW6uWSGfkIhkyk8ndm0pwJMn+UcU2Vv94fzyZ0bq fp0MOGqdUcb6ZUBcKYr6fy6j7wWfy6AkMGIYFYI9RMcTQM0gXb80y4MErFcOALrYTJNK e9HbPQaIOKsuTv49aCshIqRJid2KuiafqIrBfEjd7eDFLs/ooI29lBfdXFWZKAnarJqj 7qrhgHnMRVm5Ay4C/RH8csA3bXJSPkDDmXgfwqcdVaA6nVFJY1ZCK9vxRfSA4QmceeM2 ALKg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAJtK8pzjk23WOXNC9bG/GX1xEaO1DvUmNl69XAtM4A4SpJoP5+ biVtANfnfDuFuCHUmusnQV1IRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48dcPWMyF8jGr5uKCNj+wG06EkfdGPsDENU3hspLo1hYUrJVKRU+JbnjOGo6BdhMbDwl+Vc6w== X-Received: by 10.98.210.7 with SMTP id c7mr9282584pfg.92.1523576787867; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([118.148.68.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a15sm8213771pgd.25.2018.04.12.16.46.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:46:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Adam Roach , "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" References: <7adbf2cd-872c-2ebc-79d5-259c57bcc471@nostrum.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <1eafb781-8703-6fd0-fb98-c8e77a1ee9d7@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:46:30 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7adbf2cd-872c-2ebc-79d5-259c57bcc471@nostrum.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress" X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Sender: "rfc-interest" Hi, I strongly support fixing this issue. But... > Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification > that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the > phrase "Internet Draft" without referencing an Internet-Draft. This > may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the > specification in which the reference is made would stand as a > complete and understandable document with or without the reference to > the "Internet Draft". This doesn't cover all cases of "work in progress", unfortunately. Some of the cases it doesn't cover are a) A standards-track specification that is work in progress in another SDO. b) A non-standards-track I-D of any kind, which is probably the most common case today of "work in progress" citations. c) Any other case where "work in progress" is in fact applicable. Clearly, documents that are not I-Ds but are factually work in progress should be cited as such. Also, the first sentence doesn't need the phrase "without referencing an Internet-Draft", which to my mind makes the sentence illogical. I have an alternative suggestion. Leave the details to the RFC Editor style guide. Then the new text only needs to say: Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC. This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a complete and understandable document with or without the reference. (A more radical suggestion is to delete the paragraph completely. I'm not sure we'd lose much.) Regards Brian On 13/04/2018 10:03, Adam Roach wrote: > RFC 2026 (BCP 9) currently has the following text regarding the phrasing > that is to be used when referring to internet drafts: > > > Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification > that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the > phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. > This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long > as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a > complete and understandable document with or without the reference to > the "Work in Progress". > > > In practice, not all internet drafts are still "in progress," although > there may still be value in referring to their contents. At the request > of the RFC Editor, I have put together a very small document that amends > RFC 2026 to allow referring to such documents using the more accurate > term "Internet Draft." > > Please see , and > provide feedback on this mailing list. Thanks! > > /a > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest > _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Thu Apr 12 17:09:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373B61277BB for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wqATByrh7NXd for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5719E124D6C for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD72B82880; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A228DB82880 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfcKuKIn4sm6 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE6FB8287F for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 188-v6so6868347oih.8 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+m7qId7SBYW/fNhiMEd/pw+y8Eyq+gQXyiMuzdQXlYg=; b=XHBJRzyPlm3S/KWC49Tyso2Er0uNYUNEEVJyxYbhBQRQMRHZSW3gvtSt5URR6Ozz+P 2hhfEK0dQPzWQPlH02+7hti5mja1VBH39Od3GsFbuouOBdJnO0pGDyT8HZoNoSsiAKoD 4qzBEH4BwONOk16ElDsTmju04oPDMd9wptcG0FsnXOTT8Jy/njKXditWxCoPBEvWZ+Gx lt536iaaOUgLUZJOMzun+e+cAp2arsfHCnDHT6ZMoMC++jXpd/rtpD9mWiK3mL0BwHoV hhDqn65K2lLPumcesOKF+UWIbOrWRHLNahZygTdhWvNy3/RSs0lVop+PsCq6XC8ltY/y IiRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+m7qId7SBYW/fNhiMEd/pw+y8Eyq+gQXyiMuzdQXlYg=; b=IobvSSTflT6aPqlLCcCaPZK2SWyyPYvYoKzcgx/f7goTTaN8JJSnCqIsWx72WBSo8c Io+tu/TIm022E/L/u/NbaTsGe3IjeLJ7GQXohAbxtzNZ6AjBS2MVbFc7SRxPL0DdfV4d d+mNZqYcnffuu1UN3dSqZFYVaY/c0pdSvxPhkEfrEC7x6WpHf+wp9RzO014RANZtdSA+ CeEafoPYqOCLCz29ZvYzF5du/KcebU3U9oqgaA/2PkbxezibLxIQwnaRCrfS3wzbHr+c /0yb4X64BwFLqJTE6+w0r62G988JkTYRtcqRT5XUETS8WyJ733HykOpp1z9ywsqirrcm CIjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tC7+NNzsM2a/Y1ljGOQma6z81KAHM7jNufcen7QMp39bh5naWkx sC8/gT6TqxngvKDZ6fW3LJ0w9se/G/pn1ZKwaoY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx491qMNz1+q4SFOrCEXC5QsofS0atiSTgwmImFpuwsM3i9zzBPCG3665ELb+Oa0GpqunlgqbiUkEDXREQL8UF7E= X-Received: by 2002:aca:524c:: with SMTP id g73-v6mr6911953oib.144.1523578189324; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:ac7:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1eafb781-8703-6fd0-fb98-c8e77a1ee9d7@gmail.com> References: <7adbf2cd-872c-2ebc-79d5-259c57bcc471@nostrum.com> <1eafb781-8703-6fd0-fb98-c8e77a1ee9d7@gmail.com> From: Martin Thomson Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:09:48 +1000 Message-ID: To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referring to Internet Drafts -- retiring "Work in Progress" X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Sender: "rfc-interest" The idea of lifting these sorts of things out of the rather-hard-to-change place they exist (BCPs) and into the style guide or locations more amenable to change is an improvement. On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > I strongly support fixing this issue. But... > >> Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification >> that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the >> phrase "Internet Draft" without referencing an Internet-Draft. This >> may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the >> specification in which the reference is made would stand as a >> complete and understandable document with or without the reference to >> the "Internet Draft". > > This doesn't cover all cases of "work in progress", unfortunately. Some of > the cases it doesn't cover are > a) A standards-track specification that is work in progress in another SDO. > b) A non-standards-track I-D of any kind, which is probably the > most common case today of "work in progress" citations. > c) Any other case where "work in progress" is in fact applicable. > Clearly, documents that are not I-Ds but are factually work in > progress should be cited as such. > > Also, the first sentence doesn't need the phrase "without referencing an > Internet-Draft", which to my mind makes the sentence illogical. > > I have an alternative suggestion. Leave the details to the RFC Editor > style guide. Then the new text only needs to say: > > Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification > that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC. This > may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the > specification in which the reference is made would stand as a > complete and understandable document with or without the reference. > > (A more radical suggestion is to delete the paragraph completely. > I'm not sure we'd lose much.) > > Regards > Brian > > On 13/04/2018 10:03, Adam Roach wrote: >> RFC 2026 (BCP 9) currently has the following text regarding the phrasing >> that is to be used when referring to internet drafts: >> >> >> Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification >> that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the >> phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. >> This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long >> as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a >> complete and understandable document with or without the reference to >> the "Work in Progress". >> >> >> In practice, not all internet drafts are still "in progress," although >> there may still be value in referring to their contents. At the request >> of the RFC Editor, I have put together a very small document that amends >> RFC 2026 to allow referring to such documents using the more accurate >> term "Internet Draft." >> >> Please see , and >> provide feedback on this mailing list. Thanks! >> >> /a >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rfc-interest mailing list >> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >> > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Wed Apr 25 12:13:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A33129C56 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KofU0tEGSR5X for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CF0512702E for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFE5B80C0E; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C577DB80C0E for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEytd5DUNQo8 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD390B80C0D for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E1F1CA060 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxHpwgmW0vQ3 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.11] (unknown [50.89.234.39]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 87AC41C9E85 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Larson Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:13:17 -0400 To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor downtime Sunday, April 29, 2018 X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Sender: "rfc-interest" Greetings! On Sunday, April 29, 2018, there will be a scheduled downtime impacting the RFC Editor web and Internet services. The scheduled downtime will occur between 5:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. Eastern time (0900 to 1100 UTC). RFC Editor services including the website (www.rfc-editor.org), errata system, FTP, and RSYNC will be unavailable for the duration of the maintenance. On behalf of the RFC Editor, Matt ------------------------------------------- Matthew Larson, Systems Engineer Association Management Solutions Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning 5177 Brandin Court Fremont, CA 94538 http://www.amsl.com _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest