Re: Revising full standards

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-12-11 09:24, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, December 10, 2007 11:16 AM -0800 Bob Braden 
> <braden at ISI.EDU> wrote:
>
> > >         * 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         withdrawn because that leads to silly states in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.
>
> It is only a patch.  If you do it, it is not clear to me what the STD 
> number (still) accomplishes.

It's a new way into the maze and I think it's worth doing quickly, since
it doesn't misrepresent the formal standards process in any way. Ideally,
www.rfc-editor.org/smtp and www.rfc-editor.org/STD10 would also
take you straight there too. (Tools prototype?)

<snip>

> (2) Assign STD numbers to Proposed Standards, retaining them through the 
> process and permitting the STD number to shift to a Proposed Standard 
> that replaces a Full one.    

I agree with this. Thus a standard would be somewhere in a loop:

  PS10-->DS10-->STD10-->|
  ^                     |
  |_____________________|

     Brian

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