Hello. I would like to express my concern about retiring the xx99 RFCs. I think they still fill a need, especially over longer periods of time, and should not be discontinued. It was stated that they are no longer needed because "up to date information" is available online, and the RFC search engine is mentioned. This makes RFC indexing dependent on the operation of external applications, such as RFC search, or Google, or whatever. While I am sure that the operators of the RFC search engine and of Google firmly plan on operating their service for the duration, the "duration" can end or be interrupted (as is being discovered by all the users of the NIST web document servers right now). Also, the RFC docs have been and will only continue to be important historical and foundational documents, and should have their own in-line canonical summary index in the same format, for inclusion into larger document collections, and into historical archives and printings. Does it cost IETF anything to keep creating the xx99's? They should not be discontinued. Thanks! On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, RFC Series Editor <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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