John C Klensin wrote:
(i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures.
It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text
in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC.
I-D not intended to be an RFC was clear, but we missed
the critical "text *_in_* an I-D" trick / how-to / option...
(ii) The IESG can instruct IANA to form a registry
...in conjunction with this shortcut.
Those instructions can be in an RFC, in an I-D, in a formal
IESG note to IANA, or, in principle, written on the
back of an envelope.
Okay, that's better - at least for the future 3066ter with
several thousands of ISO 639-3 language subtags.
The document is passed to the RFC Editor for publication,
but with a note indicating that the 100 or so pages of
subtags should be dropped and replaced by a paragraph that
explains how the initial subtags, as specified by the WG
process, can be identified from the registry itself.
Makes sense, and that text could be "informational".
I _strongly_ prefer that the relevant paragraph be
constructed and approved by the WG itself, rather than
being made up by one or more IESG members; I assume the
IESG would feel the same way.
You obviously have a working "threat analysis" for these
procedural details, where the threats cover hypothetical
cases like "IESG screws up" or "somebody cries 'appeal'" ;-)
a RFC that is 100 or so pages shorter and that eliminates
any chance of the contents of the RFC being confused with
the contents of the registry itself (something that the
I-D explicitly warns against).
Okay, I knew that it's possible to have notes to the RfC-
editor in an I-D (e.g. instructions to remove the document
history), but I didn't know that it's also possible to have
similar notes _to_ the IESG (unlike _from_ the IESG).
unfathomable to me
Authors feel like fathers, easily upset if you'd propose to
"do" something with their baby that's strictly impossible ;-)
if, somehow, the WG believes that there is "credit" for an
RFC in proportion to its page count. That belief would be,
AFIK, pretty novel around the IETF.
It's far too short for the Guiness book as the longest RfC,
so that wasn't our intention. RfC 2801 could be the record.
Ietf mailing list