Tony, Dave, On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 19:59 +0000, Tony Finch wrote: > On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough > > and formative effort, please take a look at: > > > > <http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/> This seems like the kind of thing I was thinking of. > There are also some groups of RFCs listed at > http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/index.html While this is better than nothing, it's almost the same as using the RFC-editor search page. I mean, looking at the IMAP documents: http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/ipoplist.html Does a modern implementer really care about IMAP version 2? Maybe they do, if it's in use commonly today, but probably not. Surely an IMAP expert could look at that list and say, perhaps, the ACL extension is almost never used (I have no idea if this is true, this is just an example). So, would RFC 1639 - FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR) be included in a list of FTP documents, even though everybody actually uses RFC 2428 (FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs)? I would argue "no", or rather that there should be some editorial content letting people know that, frankly, FOOBAR is exactly what it claims to be. ;) (And before people mention that it's experimental, RFC 5006 - IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - now obsoleted by RFC 6106 - was experimental for a few years and was actually probably something that *is* worthwhile implementing.) Sorry this is a bit ranting. I don't mean to be negative! I'm actually hopeful that some solutions can be found. -- Shane _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf