--On Thursday, 02 October, 2008 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> and you wrote:
>
> *> So, we no longer remove documents from the I-D directory
> when *> the Protocol Action notice is issued and the RFC
> Editor *> notified. We don't have the Internet Society
> Newsletter *> contemplated by the second paragraph, so it
> can't be the *> "publication of record". And we have
> dropped STD0001 as a *> frequently-updated publication.
> *>
>
> The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated
> daily. And we recently published a "periodic" version as an
> RFC, over some people's dead bodies, I might add.
Bob,
In large measure because of the health risks associated with
leaving dead bodies lying around the landscape and, as I
suggested in my response to Dave, a desire to avoid recruiting a
corps of rat hole diggers and passing out shovels, I would like
to avoid the question of whether that daily update is actually
STD 1 or just another form of the "RFC Index". Because 2026
permits the association of the "Standard" designation (and the
associated STD number) only with published RFCs that have gone
through IETF Last Call, with consensus determination by the
IESG, and specifically refers to STD1 as an RFC, I think the
claim that the dynamic online document is the actual STD1 is
dubious at best.
Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
running on the waiting period. I think that would violate
common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
waiting period between IESG action and RFC publication. I
think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,
but, again, not a place I want to go.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf