John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The other, which may be more practical and useful, suggests that we
> should include a statement in every new RFC that says something like
> "for up-to-date information about the status of this document, see..."
> and give a URL. If we needed to drive that point home (given recent
> debates, we probably do), we might also change "Category" at the top of
> every RFC to "Category at the time of publication" or even "Status at
> the time of publication" and include relevant STD or BCP numbers with
> that label. That would make it extremely clear that Category/Status
> information was _not_ a permanent property of that particular RFC.
+1.
I still think we need a richer lexicon than just Historic.
Can bike shedding this be added to the 2026 update group?
Alldispatch said:
>1. Standards Processes (Rich Salz)
> -> Charter a focused working group
>
>2. The IETF Chair May Delegate (Lars Eggert)
> -> Charter a working group (possibly combined with #1 above)
AFAIK, no list or WG or BOF has been proposed as yet?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
