Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
I'm fine with that restriction :-)
_Better is the enemy of good enough_
> 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.
I disagree: we don't have a process that would allow us to get this consensus
for all streams.
>> 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
>>
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
