Re: [Fwd: IETF Process discussions - next steps]

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

 



Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> HTTP is by any rational definition a standard.

It's the only RFC I've heard of with outsourced errata.
It needs fixing to be published as full standard.
 
> The obsolete version of SMTP is considered 'standard'.

For the state of the actual SMTP look into your inbox.
It also has a lot of errata, some only collected in an
unpublished draft at the moment.

Procedural improvements could start with the "errata"
procedure, it's a bit slow.  Obvious typos submitted by
an original author shouldn't take two years.

Or another "decruft" experiment, that worked well.  One
of the submitted pending errata mentioned several RFCs
which could now be moved to "historic", because they
depend on RFCs cleaned up in the first "decruft" round.

A minor point could be to sort BCPs in "technical" and
"admin".  The "ION" experiment is promising.

Brian's proposal to extract the "appeal" stuff from 2026
was also good.

Frank



_______________________________________________

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]