Hi Dave,
At 14:11 30-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
And, of course, if it "can" be reshashed, in the IETF it will be.
Agreed.
However the specification for the new two-stage model provides
criteria for the second stage, and it does not include re-evaluating
the technology or its details. Instead it focuses on adoption and use.
RFC 5011 is one of the rare RFCs which does not have any
erratum. The move wasn't problematic. It is not clear whether RFC
6891 is an odd case or symptomatic of the difficulties in updating a
specification.
The easier way not to have a re-evaluation is not to reopen the RFC
(e.g. RFC 5011). Anything else means having two consensus calls on
the text. draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00 proposes an alternative
where the specification is not expected to be complete and comprehensive.
Here's a minimum standards profile published in 2009:
SMTP IETF STD 10 (RFC 821, 1869, 1870)
DNS IETF STD 13 (RFC 1034, 1035)
HTTP v1.1 (RFC 2616), URL (RFC 1738), URI (RFC 2396)
IPv4 (RFC 791, 792, 919, 922, 1112)
BGP4 (RFC 1771)
The ex-IAB Chair explains that RFC 1035 is an Internet Standard. He
then explains that an Experimental Standard (RFC 1183) updates that
Internet Standard. The Internet Standard is updated by a Best
Current Practices (RFC 6895). There is also a Proposed Standard (
RFC 1982) which updates the Internet Standard. He recommends RFC
2026 for further information. He receives an enquiry afterwards
about immature specifications. He decides to ask the question at the
plenary. The community thanks him for his valiant efforts.
The alternative is to settle for Informational Standards as that
requires less effort.
Regards,
-sm