The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed? Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10 or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt. In this particular case, you can also find it at http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html#anchor5 Regards Brian On 02/10/2013 07:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Not to detract from your point, Michael, but > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcom&rfcs=on&sort= is pretty > good. > > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >> Michael Richardson >> Sent: 01 October 2013 19:29 >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker >> >> >> This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything >> that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be >> useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ >> first. I guess I could have instead gone to: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 >> >> but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat... >> (3777? 3737? 3733?) >> >> While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and >> in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list >> the other documents. Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly >> explained: >> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were >>> published by the NOMCOM Working Group. The NOMCOM Working Group was >>> open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777. >>> >>> The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is, >>> outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually >>> on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page. >> I wonder about this as a policy. >> >> Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I wanted >> quickly (RFC5680 it was)... >> >> While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of >> consensus do not belong on a WG page. But, if the document was the result of >> consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think that >> perhaps it should appear there anyway. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works >> > > >