On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:59 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:
Very well said. As I said in my message of 18 June, my advice
would be to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9
(RFC 2026) and move on. It would also be OK for newtrk to refocus
on its original charter of simplifying the standards track. But I
would be very dismayed to see it focus on document relationships.
Few RFCs are stand-alone elements for developing interchange. When
flattening document categorization, conveying levels of interchange
remains problematic. Evolution of document relationships remain an
element poorly handled by composing these sets within RFCs
themselves, which are likely rapidly dated. A tracking system not
encumbered with inclusion of normative language ensures a working-set
can be tracked in a reasonable fashion. Much of the RFC review
process and utilization depends upon understanding what is the
intended set. The Name.Serial proposals as found in both the ISD and
SRD proposals provides a means for both tracking this evolution,
while also stabilizing references used to uncover document sets.
Often as documents change, reference to the prior set may be
considered by the community as Stable, whereas the latest set, as
Current. Stable versus Current is too dynamic to be tracked by a
highly formalized process. The IETF could publish a list of
interchange categories as just Name.Serial on a web page, for example.
Once the process is understood to be broken, it should also be
obvious that it would have also been fixed had this information been
useful. Those actually using the information have been well served
by the efforts focused upon providing document relationships. It
would also seem more appropriate to categorize the document sets
rather than individual RFCs. There could by a set that includes the
single RFC, but that will likely be the exception and not the rule.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf