Subject: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:29:24 -0400

This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything
that updated it.  I find the datatracker WG interface to really be
useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/
first.  I guess I could have instead gone to:
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777

but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat...
(3777? 3737? 3733?)

While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and
in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list
the other documents.  Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly
explained:

>http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were
>published by the NOMCOM Working Group.  The NOMCOM Working Group was
>open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777.
>
>The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is,
>outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually
>on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page.

I wonder about this as a policy.

Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I wanted
quickly (RFC5680 it was)...

While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
consensus do not belong on a WG page.  But, if the document was the result of
consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think that
perhaps it should appear there anyway.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:35:54 +0100

Not to detract from your point, Michael, but
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcom&rfcs=on&sort= is pretty
good.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Michael Richardson
> Sent: 01 October 2013 19:29
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:14:26 +1300

The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that
be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed?

Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10
or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt.

In this particular case, you can also find it at
http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html#anchor5

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:05:51 -0400

> or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt.

I think that you are right. We need to find ways to talk about BCP10
more frequently, rather than 3777.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:09:38 -0400

I note that neither:
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/

nor:
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcom&rfcs=on&sort=

told me that 3777 was also BCP10 now.
(Even if 3777 wasn't BCP10 anymore, I think it would be useful for the
datatracker to tell me that it was part of BCP10, because I'll bet that 90%
of the time, I really want the latest info)

Although:

did point at BCP10, but just said "BCP10".  I think that perhaps
on that page, if it said, "BCP10 - IETF Nomination Process", that the
link would stand out better.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:56:32 +0000

On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> quickly (RFC5680 it was)…

Like everything else in the IETF, there's a tools version for this as well: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/

You get the same list, but you also get the titles of those RFCs if you mouse over the links.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:18:32 +0100

Hi Michael,

I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF
we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual
document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF
should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like
the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For
example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related
because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to
use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't
comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change
in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was
requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond).

 Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of
views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not
all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see
that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a
new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related
to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are
examined by IESG.

AB

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
>

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:52:25 +0000

Irrepressible

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:19 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ietf; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

Hi Michael,

I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond).

 Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are examined by IESG.

AB

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Sandelman Software Works

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:21:58 +0100

"because all IETF document are examined by IESG"

No they're not. See RFC4844.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [[email-masked]]
Sent: 02 October 2013 13:18
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ietf; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards      track, and datatracker

Hi Michael,

AB

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:10:47 -0400

> No they're not. See RFC4844.

Lloyd, it *is* true that all documents in the IETF stream are reviewed
and approved by the IESG.  I would take "IETF documents" to refer to
documents in the IETF stream.

(In fact, documents in the IRTF and Independent streams are also
"examined" by the IESG, but only for conflict review, according to RFC
5742.  The only RFCs that the IESG doesn't look at in any formal way
are those in the IAB stream.)

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:15:19 -0400

1 April RFCs excepted

Scott

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:38:21 -0500

>   1 April RFCs excepted

Ah.

I'm sitting here banging my head on a desk thinking "I knew that" ... 
thanks, Scott!

Spencer