On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:24 AM, jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: What I tried to say above is that I dislike hard rules such as: More generally, I don't think that advancing standards to DS should invite special scrutiny along those lines. I think we should regularly apply such scrutiny to all IETF standards, regardless of their status. If the standard no longer meets our current criteria for standardization, we should say so. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should reclassify it as Historic or otherwise take away its status. If people are still using the protocol, we can be of more service by maintaining the specification than by abandoning it. We should enumerate the known problems, identify the known fixes or workarounds, identify opportunities for new fixes that haven't been developed yet. But I do agree with you that whether a separate new RFC, editing this RFC, I agree with that as you've stated it. But I think there should be a presumption that writing a new RFC is done only in extreme cases, and that when this is done, the document has to recycle at Proposed. And I'm okay in principle with editing existing RFCs and reissuing them with a new number, but I wish the new ones would have change bars. (and maybe, when rendered in HTML, other indications of specifically which text is changed). Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf