I'm a little miffed that this issue took so long to come to light, but I'm=
=20
also wondering whether there's a relatively quick fix.
My reading of the draft finds 6 references to internet drafts (I'm ignoring=
=20
the KP document):
[3] WPAD
[4] CARP
[7] Ivan Lovric's ICP extensions
[13] WCCPv1.0
[16] Goutard & Lovric's satellite pre-filling
[21] NECP
Of those [3], [4] and [13] are protocols that are in use in the real=20
Internet today. And those drafts (which we attempted to archive for this=20
specific reason - note that the URLs do *not* point to the IETF=20
repositories) are the only publicly available documentation (if you know=20
differently then please let me know!). Cisco published the specification=20
for WCCPv2 earlier this year, but I haven't seen any discussion about it.
Is the fix to simply make the filenames/references look less like=20
internet-drafts and just keep them in their current locations? (For those=
=20
wondering about RFC2026 section 10 stuff, all allow derivative works.)
Working through the draft, as the problem references arise:
Section 6.3 - CARP - Supported in commercial and free (and rather well=20
used) products. Needs mentioning, needs a reference.
Section 6.4 - WPAD - MSIE supports it, and I know of several ISPs that use=
=20
it. Needs mentioning, needs a reference. (There's a re-submitted version=
=20
in the ID queue right now.)
Section 7.1.1 - ICP - references [7] as an extension, not as an=20
authoritative reference. Shouldn't really be a problem?
Section 7.1.4 - Cache pre-filling via satellite - Get rid of the=20
authoritative reference (there isn't one, I guess) and add it as a note?
Section 7.2.1 - CARP (again)
Section 8.1 - WCCP - Deployed in rather a few Cisco products and many=20
caching proxy vendors' products. Needs mentioning, needs a reference.
Section 8.2 - NECP - Interest seems to have waned, though I know of some=20
folks who are interested in it and are using it in some way. Should be=20
mentioned, needs a reference.
At 14:32 11/15/00 -0800, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote:
>I think you get the message from the RFC Editor below.
>
>I need a new version of this document.
>
> Patrik
> Co-Area Director, Applications Area
>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>>From: jkrey@ISI.EDU
>>Posted-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 00 14:26:41 PST
>>To: iesg@ISI.EDU
>>Subject: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-05
>>Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU
>>
>>
>>
>>Ned, Patrik, IESG folks,
>>
>>I have been wrestling with bad URL links in this document. While the
>>authors have been very helpful in tracking down live links to replace
>>the cited bad links, I have come upon an additional problem with this
>>RFC-to-be.
>>
>>Laced throughout this document are pointers and citations to
>>Internet-Drafts. This includes full <draft-blah-blah.0*.txt> strings.
>>Many of them noted as "expired" I-Ds AND also noted as the
>>"Authoritative reference" in each descriptive section. At first, I
>>attempted to replace any "draft" type mention with "work in progress",
>>which is our practice. I am afraid that in this particular case, it is
>>too much!
>>
>>Since we still have the "rule" about not citing/pointing to
>>Internet-Drafts in RFCs, does the IESG and relevant Area Directors
>>still agree that this document should go forward in its current state?
>>
>>Thanks! Joyce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST