Subject: Re: Comments please (draft-02f)

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:12:46 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Gary Tomlinson wrote:

> Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't a technical report that is archived
> properly suitable as a RFC reference?  If so, then Alex all that is
> needed would be to create a TR out of your current spec and place it
> in one of your archives at NLANR.

This was long time ago, and the taxonomy draft has a reference to our
specs at http://squid.nlanr.net/CacheDigest/cache-digest-v5.txt.

I just was under (perhaps false) impression that the editor finds it
annoying that no Cache Digest RFC has been submitted to IETF. So I
tried to explain the reasons why that was not done.

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Ian Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:43:24 +0100

>specs at http://squid.nlanr.net/CacheDigest/cache-digest-v5.txt.

Right, though I think what Gary is saying is that it's problematic to
get to Informational RFC ourselves if we cite things that aren't
RFCs/technical reports, etc.  It would make life easier if the
document above was simply available from a genuine technical report
archive somewhere.

>tried to explain the reasons why that was not done.

The comment pre-dates me.  The source of annoyance is not with the
authors of that document however.  Publishing as a technical report
within NLANR (or wherever) is the "next" best thing to it being an
RFC.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:19:52 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Ian Cooper wrote:

> RFCs/technical reports, etc.

You get into an interesting chicken-and-egg problem though. AFAIK, the
taxonomy document is supposed to document the current practice. So what
do you do if the "current practice" is not documented (i.e. no RFCs or
TRs are available)? :)

> It would make life easier if the

OK. Let's call the specs on our site a "IRCache technical report number
CD-V5-01" then. :)

If that is not possible then please define (off the list) what a
technical report is, and we will try to satisfy the requirements.
Personally, I would be reluctant to submit the current specs to any
external entity such as NLANR though.

Thanks,

Alex.