--On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: > This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official > Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to > potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. > > The document is available for inspection here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/ > > From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026: > > 'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications > is > summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet > Official > Protocol Standards".' > > My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC > 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about > that? SM, You have just identified another aspect of why I find this document troubling. I note that requirement of RFC 2026 has not been satisfied for years unless one interprets "periodically" as consistent with "whenever we get around to it, which, in today's age, is likely to be never". I note that the last version of STD 1 was RFC 5000, published in May 2008 and that its predecessor was RFC 3700 in July 2004, i.e., there was a four year interval followed by at least a seven year one. That is well outside most normal interpretations of "periodic". I don't personally think it is worth it (or, more specifically, think the resources could be better spent in other ways) but, if one believed the "keep anything that might turn out to be historically important" theme of the IETF 86 History BOF, then there is value in maintaining the sort of comprehensive status snapshot that STD 1 was supposed to provide (once its [other] original purpose of being part of a report to the sponsor became irrelevant) even if that snapshot is taken only once every few years. That aside, I think this document is almost completely unnecessary. RFC 5000 already points to the HTML version of the RFC index as the authority for contemporary information. There has, as far as I know, never been a requirement that STD 1 be issued as RFCs numbered NN00, nor that all such numbers be reserved for that purpose, outside the internal conventions of the RFC Editor function. At the same time, if the IAB and RSE believe that assembling and publishing this statement formally and in the RFC Series is a good use of their time and that of the community, I think it is basically harmless, _unless_ it becomes an opportunity to nit-pick such questions as its relationship to requirements or statements in 2026 or elsewhere. > From Section 3: > > "This document formally retires STD 1. Identifier STD 1 > will not be > re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic > snapshots > of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the > documentation is > resumed)." > > The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an > online list now. The above reserves an option to restart > periodic snapshots if there is a future need. I suggest > removing that option as I presume that the IAB has thought > carefully about the long term evolution of the Series before > taking the decision to retire STD 1. This is another form of the nit-picking (if there were protocols involved, the historical term would involve the phrase "protocol lawyer") that concerns me. I don't remember where it is written down (if at all), but the RFC Editor has had a firm rule ever since I can remember that STD numbers are never reused for a different topic. Violating that prohibition against reuse would be a really stupid move on the part of the RFC Editor and/or the IAB. If they were to be that stupid, we have much more serious other problems. If they are going to continue to avoid that sort of stupidity, then that part of the statement above is completely unnecessary - but still harmless. As far as removing the option is concerned, I think doing so would be pointless if the rest of the statement remains. For better or worse, anything that is written into one RFC by the IAB (or, under different circumstances, the IETF) can be amended out of it by another RFC. While I think it unlikely, I can imagine at least one scenario, tied to the historical concern above, under which we would resume publishing a snapshot. Whether the IAB has considered it or not and whatever promises this document does or does not make are irrelevant to whether or not that would happen. Summary: I think the RFC Series Editor should just make whatever announcement she feels it is appropriate to make, recognizing that we stopped regularly updating STD 1 long ago and have no present intention of restarting. I think this document and the process and associated work it imposes on the IAB and the community are a waste of time that could be better used in other ways. However, if they feel some desire to publish it in some form, let's encourage them to just get it done and move on rather than consuming even more time on issues that will make no difference in the long term. best, john