RE: History behind RFC numbers

[Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@xxxxxxx>]

Trying to resist - but can't help myself.

Just need to point out that Working
Groups, and even Areas, are pretty fluid. 

 I can think of quite a few cases
where RFCabcd was developed by WG X in Area Y, but RFCefgh, which is a
DIRECT update of RFCabcd, was developed in WG Z in Area W.

Janet

"ietf" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> wrote
on 10/02/2014 08:16:42 AM:

> From: Hosnieh Rafiee <hosnieh.rafiee@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10/02/2014 08:17 AM
> Subject: RE: History behind RFC numbers
> Sent by: "ietf" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> > 
> > Can someone tell me what is broken?
> > 
> 
> 
> Nothing is broken. It is only some new ideas for pointing to RFCs
> and making the numbers meaningful so that when someone hear RFC 
> xxxxxxx that person knows what its general area and what WGs it 
> might be related to.
> 
> Because at the moment the RFC numbers are only numbers that nobody
> can get more information only by knowing the number. Maybe just 
> guess it might be for year 2014 or year 2013... because of its start
> but nothing more and sometimes the titles are really long and cannot
> be used as a reference.
> 
> 
>