Clarifying IETF Document Status
draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Mark Nottingham 
Last updated 2021-03-11
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                             12 March 2021
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 13 September 2021

                    Clarifying IETF Document Status
             draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00

Abstract

   There is widespread confusion about the status of Internet-Drafts and
   RFCs, especially regarding their association with the IETF and other
   streams.  This document recommends several interventions to more
   closely align reader perceptions with actual document status.

Note to Readers

   _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_

   The issues list for this draft can be found at
   https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/where-does-that-come-from
   (https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/where-does-that-come-from).

   The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
   https://mnot.github.io/I-D/where-does-that-come-from/
   (https://mnot.github.io/I-D/where-does-that-come-from/).

   Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
   pages/where-does-that-come-from (https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/
   gh-pages/where-does-that-come-from).

   See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-where-does-that-
   come-from/ (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-where-
   does-that-come-from/).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Nottingham              Expires 13 September 2021               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Clarifying IETF Document Status          March 2021

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 September 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Proposal 1: logo usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.2.  Proposal 2: visual distinction  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.3.  Proposal 3: domain usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Internet-Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Proposal 4: logo usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  Proposal 5: visual distinction  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.3.  Proposal 6: domain usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.4.  Proposal 7: boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   There is widespread confusion about the status of Internet-Drafts and
   RFCs -- specifically, regarding their association with the IETF and
   other streams.  It is commonly perceived that all RFCs and all
   Internet-Drafts are associated with and approved by the IETF.

Nottingham              Expires 13 September 2021               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Clarifying IETF Document Status          March 2021

   This is likely due to the conflation of the IETF and RFC brands; most
   people think of them in close association, and do not appreciate the
   concept of streams, because it is not surfaced obviously in the
   documents.  These impressions are reinforced by our reuse of IETF
   infrastructure for publishing and managing drafts on other streams,
   as well as drafts on no stream.
Show full document text