Subject: Re: [yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:09:39 +0300

Dave,

> If the proposal being promoted by Russ is chosen, then there's nothing 
> for this wg to do: everything that is a candidate for the wg should 
> automatically already be at the final level. No?

I would hope that the YAM working group exists to improve the e-mail 
related RFCs. I'm not sure about these specific RFCs, but in general, I 
at least see often small issues here and there, there's usually some 
filed errata, and we've learned over the years to understand some issues 
better. While all of these issues are small (as evidenced by global 
deployment of this technology), I still think they are worthwhile to 
handle. In short, while the edits will probably be small, I think it is 
our duty at the IETF to maintain our specifications.

For instance, I looked at draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation and 
all the suggested changes make sense to me (irrespective of what labels 
we might be using to name the resulting RFCs).

Just my view point on this, of course.

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:47:14 -0400

--On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 17:09 +0300 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dave,
> 
>> If the proposal being promoted by Russ is chosen, then
>> there's nothing  for this wg to do: everything that is a
>> candidate for the wg should  automatically already be at the
>> final level. No?
> 
> I would hope that the YAM working group exists to improve the
> e-mail related RFCs. 

Actually, the YAM WG exists --I'm inclined say "solely"-- to
advance these documents to Full Standard.   Quoting the from
first two sentences of the charter:

	"The Yet Another Mail (YAM) WG will revise existing
	Internet Mail specifications currently at Draft Standard
	to advance them to Full Standard. YAM will focus
	strictly on advancing email-related specifications..."

> I'm not sure about these specific RFCs,
> but in general, I at least see often small issues here and
> there, there's usually some filed errata, and we've learned
> over the years to understand some issues better. While all of
> these issues are small (as evidenced by global deployment of
> this technology), I still think they are worthwhile to handle.
> In short, while the edits will probably be small, I think it
> is our duty at the IETF to maintain our specifications.

Sure.  The difficulty lies at the intersection of "duty" with
"resources", "motivation", and "priorities".  Your observations
about small issues, errata, and improved understanding can be
applied to almost any standards-track RFC.  As an extreme
example, there are certainly enough small issues, updates, and
improved understanding to justify updates/replacements for RFC
768 and/or RFC 793 yet, "duty" aside, we have not done that.

> For instance, I looked at
> draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation and all the
> suggested changes make sense to me (irrespective of what
> labels we might be using to name the resulting RFCs).

Sure.  They make sense to me too.  Whether they make enough
sense to justify the editorial effort, the efforts by the WG to
be sure that any changes are made correctly and don't have
side-effects, etc., is really the question, not whether the
document can be made better with another editing pass (in the
case of 5321bis, the third such pass if one counts from 2821 and
a somewhat higher number if one goes further back -- there is
still some unchanged 821 text in 5321).

I note that the thesis of draft-housley-two-... can be
interpreted as "one revision after the original spec is
worthwhile, but more than one isn't worth the effort".  I don't
happen to believe that, and I'm keenly aware of the fact that
errata, even "approved" errata, do not constitute community
consensus documents, but, if the IESG does, then YAM is pretty
worthless even though the documents themselves (again, like
almost all other documents the IETF has produced) could be
improved.

    john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:06:28 -0700

On 6/29/2010 7:09 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> If the proposal being promoted by Russ is chosen, then there's nothing for
>> this wg to do: everything that is a candidate for the wg should
> I would hope that the YAM working group exists to improve the e-mail related
> RFCs.

Jari,

This might reflect continuing confusion about the purpose of the YAM working group.

In pragmatic terms, as odd as it might seem, that is almost explicitly NOT what
the working is chartered to do.

"Full" standard is really about community acceptance, rather than being about 
improving the specifications.  For YAM, the focus in writing the charter was 
specifically NOT to make any interesting changes.  Anything that seems to call 
for interesting changes is required to /disqualify/ the specification from 
further consideration...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:46:33 -0400

If Russ' two step process goes forward, then the YAM working group's 
current charter will be complete.

At that point, we will have some choices to make such as whether we shut 
down the WG or whether we recharter.

When we started up YAM, we did discuss several possibilities for 
post-Full Standard work, including working on the numerous documents 
sitting in Proposed Standard state.

It will be up to the WG to make a decision when the time comes.

     Tony Hansen
     Your Friendly Neighborhood Co-Chair

On 6/29/2010 1:06 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> related
> "Full" standard is really about community acceptance, rather than 
> being about improving the specifications.  For YAM, the focus in 
> writing the charter was specifically NOT to make any interesting 
> changes.  Anything that seems to call for interesting changes is 
> required to /disqualify/ the specification from further consideration...
>
> d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:23:19 -0400

--On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 17:46 -0400 Tony Hansen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If Russ' two step process goes forward, then the YAM working
> group's current charter will be complete.

And, presumably the pre-eval documents will be permitted to
quietly expire.

> At that point, we will have some choices to make such as
> whether we shut down the WG or whether we recharter.
> 
> When we started up YAM, we did discuss several possibilities
> for post-Full Standard work, including working on the numerous
> documents sitting in Proposed Standard state.
> 

And, presumably, whether to modify any or all of the document
that are now in the charter to recycle them, presumably in
improved form, without the (new) grade.

    john

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:52:08 +0300

John,

Touchè! (Though I'll point out that we have one document in INTAREA
that has an Updates: RFC 791 clause...)

Yes, indeed.

happen to believe that,

I do not believe it either, but that was NOT what the IESG was saying,
or at least not in my opinion.

At least from my point of the message should be that RFCs should be
revised and improved as often as is needed and where the effort is
still worthwhile in a cost/benefit sense. Just that we don't think we
need specific labels beyond two levels to distinguish different
revision/acceptance levels.

and I'm keenly aware of the fact that
errata, even "approved" errata, do not constitute community
consensus documents, but,

I am with you on that.

if the IESG does, then YAM is pretty
worthless even though the documents themselves (again, like
almost all other documents the IETF has produced) could be
improved.

I do not believe the IESG is saying that everyone should be using
errata from now on. There is certainly some frustration in the
community and sometimes in some of my fellow ADs about the time it
takes to produce an RFC, and that does sometimes lead people to not
bother with doing it, relying on Internet drafts, errata, common sense,
their own memories or their code base to reflect what the true protocol
behaviour should be. I still think its better to publish RFCs. (And for
the record, I do not believe it is that hard.)

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:16:41 +0300

Dave,

> required to /disqualify/ the specification from further consideration...

My view of the standards ladder advancement in IETF is that it was 
always a mixture of recognizing community acceptance and deployment 
success, removing crud (unimplemented features), and yes, even some 
document improvement.

In any case, if you believe that the work was useful when the "Full" 
label was available, I presume that was because the label would 
communicate to the world that the document is very stable, widely 
deployed, and so on. Would the work be useful if there is just another 
label "Internet Standard" but you explained the status of the work in 
words in the beginning of the document?

Jari