Comment at the end... On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> in line >> >> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> >> at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd >> paragraph in the same section >> An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall >> appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This >> shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards >> actions. >> >> should also be removed since that is not being done either >> and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that >> does not actually exist >> >>>>> I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? >>>>> >>>> Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status >>>> is always >>>> at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL >>>> the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) >>>> >>> I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm >>> not sure we need to make further reference to it. >>> >>> Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the >>> purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. >>> Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the >>> rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. >>> Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? > > I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's "it > is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not > actually exist". > > Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is > this another candidate for a short draft? <rant class="short">So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves.</rant> Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it. Brian