Donald,
I can't tell whether we are in agreement or not. Would a
separate set of real documents (separate pieces of paper) that
reference RFCs but
* are not RFCs and
* have content that is not in the RFCs
meet your criteria?
best,
john
--On Saturday, 12 June, 2004 16:37 -0400 Donald Eastlake III
<dee3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have long thought that the other document designations (STD,
> FYI, ...) are bound to continue to be confusing minor labels
> without much mind share as long as there documents are also
> RFCs. The only hope to get people to REALLY switch to using
> these new disgnations in general is to make those documents
> NOT be RFCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ==============================================================
> ======== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> dee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 155 Beaver Street
> +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA
> Donald.Eastlake@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
>> From: John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx>
>> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> Cc: rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: STD series of documents
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
>> us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
>> around a few times into an I-D. It is in the hands of the
>> posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
>> tomorrow. Watch for an announcement for
>> draft-klensin-std-repurposing-00.txt or something like that.
>>
>> High points...
>>
>> * STDs become a separate document series, independent of
>> the underlying RFCs.
>>
>> * Their content is a function of IESG protocol actions
>> or the equivalent, so that they define exactly what a
>> particular standard "means" and what its content is at
>> some point in time. They are also a place to put
>> comments and suggestions about usability and context to
>> the extent to which the IETF wishes to make such
>> statements.
>>
>> * They get activated at "Proposed", not "Internet
>> Standard".
>>
>> * They contain explicit change history and tracking info.
>>
>> It may not be right (and will need work even if it is), but
>> the document may at least help focus this, and some closely
>> related, discussions.
>>
>> I expect discussion to occur on the Newtrk list.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf