On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 01:07:57PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Friday, October 4, 2019 11:48 -0500 Nico Williams > <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We could design such a naming scheme and bolt it onto the > > existing RFCs, much like STDs have distinct (and stable) > > numbers from the RFCs that back them. > > > > E.g., we could have names like: > > > > STD-DNS-xx > > RFC-DNS-xx-vv > > > > STD-PKIX-xxx > > RFC-PKIX-xxx-vv > >... > > I won't try to spend the time today to explain why that would > cause a different set of problems other than to note that we Maybe you can try tomorrow then? I don't see any obvious problems. > often process documents that don't fall neatly into one category > and that would just cause other arguments and uncertainties. I don't see how that's an issue. Those can just get a plain ol' RFC number. > [...]. There were similar, earlier proposals for grouping > and status documents, as well as attempts to get more effort > into Applicability Statements with the same intent. All of > those efforts met the same fate: the IESG wasn't interested in > them or willing to initiate IETF Last Calls. And no one in the > community was willing to press that, e.g., by appealing the > IESG's non-action of WG Last Call requests, at least in part > because of concern that the appeal process would be damaging to > the community and that the IESG would, even if they were told to > rethink the decision, either reaffirm it or figure out other > ways to kill an idea they didn't like. Perhaps so, but a) the IESG is not an unchanging body, b) this seems like as good a time as any to bring this up again. If no one cares for this, then no one cares for this. Let's see. Nico --
