--On Thursday, October 02, 2014 13:31 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now, a few years ago at a meeting of some sort of IETF
> reformation group (I forget the name), I advocated
> the development of *structured protocol names*.
The ill-fated NEWTRK, which also included proposals to extend
the STD number model into comprehensive descriptions of just
what was, and was not, in a standard on a more dynamic basis
that static/ archival RFCs.
> RFC
> (document) numbers do NOT fill that bill. We need
> both RFC document numbers and protocol names.
>
> Possible properties of protocol names might be:
> (1) names, not numbers!!
> (2) Probably hierarchical; think domain names.
> (3) Might incorporate the "Obsoletes" attribute by some sort
> of generation number.
> ("TCP.1", "TCP.2," ...)
> (4) Should be backwards compatible in general with our
> inherited protocol names.
> (5) Would be assigned by the IESG early in the standards
> process, e.g., in the WG charter from the beginning.
> But of course YMMV.
yep.
john