Re: Revising full standards

[Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>]

>         * The RFC Editor discovers that the community doesn't
>         quite know what to do with the STD number: It can't be
>         reassigned to the new document because it is at
>         Proposed.  I shouldn't be left on the original document
>         because it really isn't our latest and best thinking on
>         the subject.  And it shouldn't be withdrawn because that
>         leads to silly states in documents that have been
>         written to call on "STD 999" precisely because those
>         numbers were expected to refer to current specs.

As I told you at IETF, I believe we can temporarily patch this
problem by adding information to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD; entries like:

RFC#: (none) STD#: 10    SMTP  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [Was RFC 821,
                                       obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed 
Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10    SMTP Service Extensions [Was RFC 1869,
                                       obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed 
Standard)]
RFC#: (none) STD#: 10     Mail routing and the domain system [Was RFC 974,
                                       obsoleted by RFC 2821 (Proposed 
Standard)]

But this might help newbies, but it would only be a patch.


> So, three questions:
>
> (1) Does the community think this is a problem worth solving?
> If the answer is "no", then trying to write up a proposal is
> clearly a waste of time.
Yes.

> (2) Assuming a draft and mailing list are created, are people
> willing to review and contribute?  Do we need to start thinking

Yes.

> in terms of a WG for this issue alone? (Experience with NEWTRK
> suggests to me that a WG with a broader charter would be a bad
> idea.)


I 'dunno'

Bob Braden



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf