Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to
occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP,
UDP etc. are "done evolving").  Hence, something would have to take
the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately.


What I said was that a gap in standards-track RFCs would render the series useless.

I think this is basically correct.  The series wouldn't immediately
become useless but would become less useful over time.  The individual
documents for IP, TCP, etc. would continue to be useful until the
community felt that they had been replaced.

Were we to be foolish enough to allow a prolonged hiatus in the RFC series, there would be other SDOs more than willing to take over maintenance and extension of the IP suite, of course labeling the
resulting standards "Implementation Agreements" or "Recommendations"
instead of "RFCs".

pretty much agree with this also. abandoning the RFC series (without an immediate replacement from IETF) would create a vacuum that other SDOs would be eager to fill. even with an immediate replacement there would likely be some market confusion if we changed the name from RFC to something else.

More importantly, later IETF work (even if called "RFCs") would not
be readily viewed as a natural evolution of the original IP standards, and would require us to actively market them.

concur.

Keith


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]