[Nut-upsuser] The IETF wants to remove chapter 8 "Implementation Status"

Roger Price roger at rogerprice.org
Tue Jul 26 08:58:02 BST 2022

The Internet Draft has progressed to the final stage known as AUTH48.  The 
technical contents are ok, and the reviewers are working on my british spelling, 
lack of commas and other sins.  The document is now known as an RFC-to-be.

Among the reviewers' comments is the following:

8) <!--[rfced] Per the suggestion of RFC 7942 ("Improving Awareness
of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section"), may we remove
the Implementation Status section of this document?

Background: RFC 2026 explains that RFC publications are either "Standards 
Track", with its three maturity levels: "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", 
and "Standard", or off-track with one of three "off-track" maturity levels: 
"Experimental", "Informational", or "Historic". 

Most IETF texts are prepared by official IETF working groups and are intended 
for Standards Track status.

Our text is one of the few Independent Submissions, written by an individual and 
not a working group. It cannot be "Standards Track".

However the AUTH48 editors examining our text want to apply RFC 7942 "Improving 
Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section" which removes the 
Implementation Status section from Standards Track RFCs.

Even though RFC 7942 says clearly "I-Ds published on the Independent Stream are 
explicitly out of scope.", we are being treated as standards material.  Whilst 
this is flattering, it would mean removing the detailed 20+ year history, and 
the Recommended Minimum support.

I propose:

  1) Removing the section 8 "Implementation Status"
  2) Moving subsections 8.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3 "Recommended Minimum Support" to
     Appendix A, new section A.4.

If anyone wishes to comment on this change, I am listening.  I don't have 
to reply to the IETF editors immediately.  Roger


A NUT IETF Standard?  In the long term a future Standards Track text for NUT 
could be developed within the netconf Working Group which is part of the IETF 
Operations and Management Area (ops). 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/about/ I hear that this has already been 
whispered, but there is no hurry, and I am not volunteering for the job.  R.

More information about the Nut-upsuser mailing list