Re: Revising full standards

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Bob Braden wrote:
> > I'd second the motion to whack STD designation. Nobody wants STD's, 
> > anyway ;-)
>
> I believe that many people want stable definitions of "well-known" Internet
> standards. like SMTP (or IP, for that matter).  STDs were a relatively 
> simple but inadequate solution for this.  Let's not kill STDs before we 
> agree on a better solution.


The two limitations to the current STD scheme seem to be a) use of a number,
and b) inability to support simultaneous versions of the same specification.

Numbers are not mnemonic, and we do have the reality of revisions that take a
long time to replace the earlier version.

Switching to an acronym label with a year qualifier ought to fix both of these.

Hence the change would be to the STD naming rule, not the existence of STD.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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