61 of the 67 have nmemonic identifiers, like SMTP and MAIL. I would also lean toward IETF-SMTP-2008. I actually have mixed feelings about interop. Part of me says that going to Internet Standard is mostly about removing cruft. However, in theory, a full regression test is not over the top. I still vote for ad hoc. Let the IESG or, since there are so few, the IAB, decide if this particular revision of that protocol warrants a full redo of the interoperability report. -- Sent from my wireless e-mail device. Sorry if terse. We all need lemonade: see <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade> for what lemonade is. ----- Original Message ----- From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> To: Eric Burger; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thu Dec 06 18:25:39 2007 Subject: Re: Revising full standards --On Thursday, 06 December, 2007 16:55 -0800 Eric Burger <eburger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hardly seems worth the effort. > > Of the 5092 RFCs published, just 67 are Full Standards. > > Of those, how many realistically need updates? > > Ad hoc may be a more efficient approach. Or, are you thinking > about a "lessons learned from RFC 2821-bis"? Most of it would actually be "lessons learned from RFC 2821". The only new issue introduced by 2821bis is the need, as some have read the rules, to formally demonstrate that email works and interoperates (not just whatever changes were introduced in 2821, but the whole business). Now, if you and a few thousand other people get this message, I'd claim a reasonable case has been made that it works, but one could always debate that. On the other hand, the STD number situation is leading us into silly states. For example, there are documents all around the world that do what we told them, which is to write "implement STD 10" for "support SMTP". Try the exercise of determining what STD 10 is today (because a pointer to RFC 821 would be wrong and one to 2821 would violate the rules). So one alternate fix is to abandon STD numbers. Those silly states are a bad idea and since, as you point out, there are only 67 full standards, maybe we don't need the numbers. john Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf