[INDEP] Re: FYI: Last Call for "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor"

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I don't see any restriction introduced by the factual "historically."

Maybe it's a bad case of DEnglish on my side, but I'd still prefer to
remove the "historically" from the draft before publication.

> I would be against creating explicit "document streams" for the
> RFC Editor

+1

> or IANA

That could be tricky, but getting a proper RFC number for their "ICP"
documents, US ASCII and all, I'd like that.  The status could be also
"informational", like RFCs published by the IAB, IESG, or IASA.

> RFC 2223 is procedural material that should be easy to update - ideal
> for an ION.

It will be soon ten years old, it doesn't change often enough for an
ION.  Or rather that's my concept of ION:  Needing modifications often,
like your roadmap text.  Maybe your concept of ION is more like "doesn't
need the complete last call + approval + RFC editor bureaucracy", that
would be somewhat different.

> RFC 1591 is a wonderful document, but unfortunately the world went
> mad the year after it was published, and I don't ever expect to see
> a 1591bis.

What happened 1995 ?  RFC 1591 is clearly better than RFC 1032, but in
that case the official status is critical to cover the relevant parts
of RFC 954.

Frank



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