Re: Revising full standards

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

 





        * The RFC Editor discovers that the community doesn't
        quite know what to do with the STD number: It can't be
        reassigned to the new document because it is at
        Proposed.  I shouldn't be left on the original document
        because it really isn't our latest and best thinking on
        the subject.  And it shouldn't be withdrawn because that
        leads to silly states in documents that have been
        written to call on "STD 999" precisely because those
        numbers were expected to refer to current specs.

As I told you at IETF, I believe we can temporarily patch this
problem by adding information to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD; entries like:

RFC#: (none) STD#: 10    SMTP  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [Was RFC 821,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10    SMTP Service Extensions [Was RFC 1869,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10     Mail routing and the domain system [Was RFC 974,
obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed Standard)]

But this might help newbies, but it would only be a patch.


So, three questions:

(1) Does the community think this is a problem worth solving?
If the answer is "no", then trying to write up a proposal is
clearly a waste of time.
Yes.

(2) Assuming a draft and mailing list are created, are people
willing to review and contribute?  Do we need to start thinking

Yes.

in terms of a WG for this issue alone? (Experience with NEWTRK
suggests to me that a WG with a broader charter would be a bad
idea.)


I 'dunno'

Bob Braden



_______________________________________________

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]