Subject: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:48:41 -0400

This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.

The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/

The Call for Review will last until 11 September 2013.  Please send comments to [email-masked]. 

On behalf of the IAB,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:06:12 -0700

At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol 
Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential 
approval as an IAB stream RFC.

The document is available for inspection here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/

 From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026:

   'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
    summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
    Protocol Standards".'

My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 
2026.  Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that?

 From Section 3:

   "This document formally retires STD 1.  Identifier STD 1 will not be
    re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots
    of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is
    resumed)."

The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list 
now.  The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if 
there is a future need.  I suggest removing that option as I presume 
that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of 
the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:55:39 -0400

SM:

> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026.  Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that?

This seems to require coordination with the General Area Director.  I suggest that you ask Jari.

> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now.  The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if there is a future need.  I suggest removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1.

I tend to agree.  I think the point is that STD 1 will not take on another meaning.

Russ

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:44:36 -0400

--On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official
> Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to
> potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
> 

SM, 

You have just identified another aspect of why I find this
document troubling.  I note that requirement of RFC 2026 has not
been satisfied for years unless one interprets "periodically" as
consistent with "whenever we get around to it, which, in today's
age, is likely to be never".  I note that the last version of
STD 1 was RFC 5000, published in May 2008 and that its
predecessor was RFC 3700 in July 2004, i.e., there was a four
year interval followed by at least a seven year one.  That is
well outside most normal interpretations of "periodic".  

I don't personally think it is worth it (or, more specifically,
think the resources could be better spent in other ways) but, if
one believed the "keep anything that might turn out to be
historically important" theme of the IETF 86 History BOF, then
there is value in maintaining the sort of comprehensive status
snapshot that STD 1 was supposed to provide (once its [other]
original purpose of being part of a report to the sponsor became
irrelevant) even if that snapshot is taken only once every few
years.  

That aside, I think this document is almost completely
unnecessary.  RFC 5000 already points to the HTML version of the
RFC index as the authority for contemporary information.  There
has, as far as I know, never been a requirement that STD 1 be
issued as RFCs numbered NN00,  nor that all such numbers be
reserved for that purpose, outside the internal conventions of
the RFC Editor function.  

At the same time, if the IAB and RSE believe that assembling and
publishing this statement formally and in the RFC Series is a
good use of their time and that of the community, I think it is
basically harmless, _unless_ it becomes an opportunity to
nit-pick such questions as its relationship to requirements or
statements in 2026 or elsewhere.

> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an
> online list now.  The above reserves an option to restart
> periodic snapshots if there is a future need.  I suggest
> removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought
> carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before
> taking the decision to retire STD 1.

This is another form of the nit-picking (if there were protocols
involved, the historical term would involve the phrase "protocol
lawyer") that concerns me.  I don't remember where it is written
down (if at all), but the RFC Editor has had a firm rule ever
since I can remember that STD numbers are never reused for a
different topic.  Violating that prohibition against reuse would
be a really stupid move on the part of the RFC Editor and/or the
IAB.  If they were to be that stupid, we have much more serious
other problems.  If they are going to continue to avoid that
sort of stupidity, then that part of the statement above is
completely unnecessary - but still harmless.  

As far as removing the option is concerned, I think doing so
would be pointless if the rest of the statement remains.  For
better or worse, anything that is written into one RFC by the
IAB (or, under different circumstances, the IETF) can be amended
out of it by another RFC.  While I think it unlikely, I can
imagine at least one scenario, tied to the historical concern
above, under which we would resume publishing a snapshot.
Whether the IAB has considered it or not and whatever promises
this document does or does not make are irrelevant to whether or
not that would happen.

Summary: I think the RFC Series Editor should just make whatever
announcement she feels it is appropriate to make, recognizing
that we stopped regularly updating STD 1 long ago and have no
present intention of restarting.  I think this document and the
process and associated work it imposes on the IAB and the
community are a waste of time that could be better used in other
ways.    However, if they feel some desire to publish it in some
form, let's encourage them to just get it done and move on
rather than consuming even more time on issues that will make no
difference in the long term.

best,
    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 07:17:49 +1200

I think that if we worried about every minor deviation from RFC 2026,
we would be here for a long time and wasting most of it.

I have no particular objection to publishing the draft.

Regards

   Brian Carpenter

(who tried and failed - see draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique,
draft-carpenter-rfc2026-practice, draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes)

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:01:41 -0500

On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026.  
> Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that?
> [...]
> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list now.

The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points. 
Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to 
do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, "We are no longer 
asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be maintained" by 
updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that 
asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I 
prepared a *very* short document to do that:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/

I'm asking Jari to Last Call it along with a status change for STD 1 
(RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of the 
history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate document, 
that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be Historic is 
something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The above document 
solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested in 
the document being updated anymore.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:26:58 -0400

I am having trouble understanding this discussion.

If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and
emitting the result as an RFC?

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:28:59 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Protocol  Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior
>>> to potential  approval as an IAB stream RFC.
>> 
>> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update
>> RFC 2026.   Does the IAB have any objection if I do something
>> about that? [...]
>> online list now.
> The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two
> points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really
> an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF
> to say, "We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol
> Standards' RFC to be maintained" by updating (well,
> effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for
> it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I

FWIW, I've reviewed your draft and have three comments:

(1) You are to be complemented on its length and complexity.

(2)  I agree that the core issue belongs to the IETF, and IETF
Stream, issue, not the RFC Editor and/or IAB.

(3) I far prefer this approach to the more complex and
convoluted RFC Editor draft.   If we really need to do something
formally here (about which I still have some small doubts), then
let's make it short, focused, and to the point.  Your draft
appears to accomplish those goals admirably.

   john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:51:05 -0700

Hi Pete,
At 12:01 20-08-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing 
>to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, "We are no 
>longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be 
>maintained" by updating (well, effectively removing) the one 
>paragraph in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from 
>Standard to Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that:
>

I read the draft.  I agree with what is written above.

>(RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of 
>the history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate 
>document, that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be 
>Historic is something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The 
>above document solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF 
>isn't interested in the document being updated anymore.

I support moving the draft to Last Call as it solves the problem.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:15:54 -0500

On 8/20/13 3:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> standards series is simply running an automated query on the database 
> and emitting the result as an RFC?

I'm sure that such a tool could be created. To date, I believe the 
document was being built by hand.

However, the document hasn't been produced in over 5 years and nobody 
seems to miss it. The RFC Editor has indicated that they're not 
enthusiastic about keeping the document up to date given that there's a 
web page with that information that is getting good use. So the thinking 
behind the document I submitted was, "Let the RFC Editor off the hook. 
We, the IETF, don't need the RFC published separately anymore, so we 
should just say that."

I suppose if there's a real resurgence of sentiment that the RFC Editor 
should keep producing that document, we can tell the IAB that the IETF 
still really wants that document produced and send them off to write a 
tool that queries their database and auto-creates the RFC. In the 
absence of such sentiment, I think we should just use the web-based 
database and clean up the STD series as stated.

pr

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:21:47 -0400

On 8/20/2013 3:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> now.
> do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, "We are no
> maintained" by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph
> in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to
> Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that:
>
> solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested
> in the document being updated anymore.
>
> pr
>

I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions.

What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were
they ever formally retired?

After rfcxx00 is retired, can the RFC editor start using both xx99 and
xx00 as normal RFC numbers?

I'm not saying that Pete

    Tony Hansen

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:41:52 -0500

> they ever formally retired?

That's not an IETF matter. There's no STD on this. There's nothing 
(AFAICT) in a BCP about this. So nothing for the IETF to do.

> xx00 as normal RFC numbers?

Again, entirely up to the RFC Editor. The IETF never documented that 
particular numbers would be used for such purposes; that's entirely an 
RFC Editor convention (again, AFAICT).

pr