Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Comments on draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-01.txt are welcome.
|  Formally abolishing the now pointless "STD 1" RFCs.

NAK - I hope we get a new STD 1 soon, ideally after 4234bis got its
STD number.

| The IETF will not  normally modify protocols developed elsewhere,

IMO the IETF must be able to adopt specific versions of a standard
developed elsewhere.  E.g. UTF-8 is what STD 63 says, it can't be
modified "elsewhere".

|  It would be much less confusing  if a new or existing acronym was 
| assigned as part of the initial standards action (thus RFC 2821 
| would have been associated with SMTP).

IMO more with ESMTP than with SMTP, I think you need a better
example here.

| Similarly, the STD number should be assigned at PS stage for
|  simpler tracking - thus RFC 2821 would also be known as PS10,
| for example. 

NAK, adding a "PS10" alias to "RFC 2821" doesn't help.  Many
PS don't deserve a separate STD number, unless they actually
make it to this level.  Some PS even don't need a nice acronym.

It might be different when a PS tries to update an existing STD,
as it's the case for RFC 2821.

| Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.

Some PS really are "proposed standards" as defined in 2026,
i.e. "immature specifications".  Or mature protocols where the
specification needs a thorough cleanup, e.g. RFC 2616.

 [2026]
| A standards action is initiated
[...]
| in the case of a specification not  associated with a Working Group, a
| recommendation by an individual to  the IESG.

 [your text]
|   A standards action is initiated
[...]
| in the case of a specification not associated with a Working Group, an
| agreement by an Area Director to recommend a specification to the
| IESG.  The IESG is empowered to define the procedures for this.

| RATIONALE: Aligning with reality.

JFTR, in reality I used the "recommendation by an individual" loophole
in two cases, for 4234bis and Archived-At. 

We had a similar debate about the shepherd-ION some months ago.
I need an appealable offense if the IESG refuses a "standards action" 
for frivolous reasons.  The RFC 2026 text offers this, I'm not sure
about your text.

| Remove the reference to gopher.

Sigh.   I kind of like RFC 4266, is that "PS gopher" in your terminology ?

| Add a note that the RFC Editor maintains errata for published RFCs.

<joke> Also add a note that they maintain a pending errata mailbox
with a submission from February 2005 waiting for publication. </joke>

 Frank


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf