Or how about reserving "RFC 3399" for use as an example RFC number... Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Eric Gray <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Maybe we should reserve RFC 3399 for an April 1st RFC? > > -- > E > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of RFC Series Editor > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:51 PM > To: IETF Announcement List > Cc: rsoc@xxxxxxx > Subject: The RFC xx99 Series > > Greetings, > > The RFC Editor is proposing to retire the practice of publishing RFCs xx99, the Request for Comments Summary for RFC Numbers xx00-xx99. In December 1991, RFC 1099 was the first "Request for Comments Summary" > RFC published. It provides a list of document titles, authors, date of publication, and abstracts for each of the RFCs published in the range 1000 - 1099. Since that time, through the time that RFC 3299 was published, a new summary RFC was published every 100 RFCs, and RFC numbers ending with 99 were reserved for these summary documents. RFC > 3399 was never published (for various reasons), though RFCs 3499 and > 3599 were. RFC 3599 was the last of these summary documents to be published in December 2003. > > These snapshots are no longer needed because up-to-date data is available online. RFC abstracts are available using the RFC search engine (http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php) and they are included in rfc-index.xml. RFCs xx99 summaries were never requested by the Internet Community and are not currently filling a need; therefore, the RFC Editor is retiring the publication of the RFC summary documents. > RFC numbers typically reserved for these documents (i.e., numbers ending with 99) may be assigned to future RFCs. > > If there are any concerns about this course of action, please comment by October 18, 2013, on the rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list. > > Thank you, > Heather Flanagan, RSE