Re: Revising full standards

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

 





Bob Braden wrote:
I'd second the motion to whack STD designation. Nobody wants STD's, anyway ;-)

I believe that many people want stable definitions of "well-known" Internet
standards. like SMTP (or IP, for that matter). STDs were a relatively simple but inadequate solution for this. Let's not kill STDs before we agree on a better solution.


The two limitations to the current STD scheme seem to be a) use of a number,
and b) inability to support simultaneous versions of the same specification.

Numbers are not mnemonic, and we do have the reality of revisions that take a
long time to replace the earlier version.

Switching to an acronym label with a year qualifier ought to fix both of these.

Hence the change would be to the STD naming rule, not the existence of STD.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

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]