Subject: Re: [rfc-i] CORRECTED RE: Handling of large code

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 15:56:14 -0400

--On Thursday, 26 May 2022 11:23:18 +1200, Brian Carpenter wrote:

>> On the other hand, if the code is informative e.g. as an
>> example of how 
> one might implement the RFC, then probably a pointer would
> suffice.
> 
> Even so, it becomes useless if the code repository goes away.
> I'd be very  cautious about this, except in an Implementation
> Status section which goes away anyway.

The historical position, and part of that elusive "archival"
concept, has been that anything on which an RFC depends to be
meaningful and understandable must come with the expectation of
being available as long as the RFC is.   In addition to
availability (e.g., whether the repository is likely to
disappear), there should be a very high level of confidence that
whatever is in the repository in a decade or two will be
identical to what was there the day the RFC was approved and
when it is published.  Those are much broader requirements than
"normative" versus "informative" and are closely connected to
the old principle of requiring that any reference used from an
RFC be stable.

So, unless we are prepared to largely abandon the notion of
archival/ stable documents with long-term availability of any
important information they might contain -- a decision that
presumably could be made only by the RSWG with broad community
support--  I would suggest the "very cautious" may be too mild.

   john

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 09:03:52 +1200

> support--  I would suggest the "very cautious" may be too mild.

I guess I was using British understatement, because you are right.

Maybe the IETF (not the RFC Series) needs an informative register
of where code claiming to implement IETF specifications might be
found. But that is a discussion for another list.

    Brian