Donald,
I can't tell whether we are in agreement or not. Would a
separate set of real documents (separate pieces of paper) that
reference RFCs but
* are not RFCs and
* have content that is not in the RFCs
meet your criteria?
best,
john
--On Saturday, 12 June, 2004 16:37 -0400 Donald Eastlake III
<dee3(_at_)pothole(_dot_)com> wrote:
I have long thought that the other document designations (STD,
FYI, ...) are bound to continue to be confusing minor labels
without much mind share as long as there documents are also
RFCs. The only hope to get people to REALLY switch to using
these new disgnations in general is to make those documents
NOT be RFCs.
Thanks,
Donald
==============================================================
======== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com 155 Beaver Street
+1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: STD series of documents
Folks,
This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
around a few times into an I-D. It is in the hands of the
posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
tomorrow. Watch for an announcement for
draft-klensin-std-repurposing-00.txt or something like that.
High points...
* STDs become a separate document series, independent of
the underlying RFCs.
* Their content is a function of IESG protocol actions
or the equivalent, so that they define exactly what a
particular standard "means" and what its content is at
some point in time. They are also a place to put
comments and suggestions about usability and context to
the extent to which the IETF wishes to make such
statements.
* They get activated at "Proposed", not "Internet
Standard".
* They contain explicit change history and tracking info.
It may not be right (and will need work even if it is), but
the document may at least help focus this, and some closely
related, discussions.
I expect discussion to occur on the Newtrk list.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf