On 31-Dec-24 06:54, Michael Richardson wrote:
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?
Only as far as the IETF stream goes. It would be better for
the changes to be applicable to all streams (along with the
question of who "owns" the virtual Legacy stream, which is
closely related to the UNKNOWN question.
Brian
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
