Hardly seems worth the effort.
Of the 5092 RFCs published, just 67 are Full Standards.
Of those, how many realistically need updates?
Ad hoc may be a more efficient approach. Or, are you thinking about a
"lessons learned from RFC 2821-bis"?
On 12/6/07 8:20 AM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi. I had intended to bring this up at the plenary last night
but, since I had not raised it on the list and was tired,
decided not to.
Our standards process (RFC2026 and updates) more or less assumes
that documents progress from idea -> I-D -> Proposed -> Draft ->
Full. Ignore, for now, the question of how much we use all of
that (and why we don't do so often enough). When the rules
associated with that progression are applied to an update to a
full standard -- a protocol that is widely deployed, tested by
much use and independent implementations-- things get a little
strange. For example:
* The RFC Editor discovers that the community doesn't
quite know what to do with the STD number: It can't be
reassigned to the new document because it is at
Proposed. I shouldn't be left on the original document
because it really isn't our latest and best thinking on
the subject. And it shouldn't be withdrawn because that
leads to silly states in documents that have been
written to call on "STD 999" precisely because those
numbers were expected to refer to current specs.
* It is not quite clear what implementation reports and
interoperability testing mean. Presuming that the
original spec doesn't count and the update is completely
new would be a major triumph of procedure over good
sense. But...
There are other issues but, in the interest of keeping this note
short, I'll leave them for another time.
So, three questions:
(1) Does the community think this is a problem worth solving?
If the answer is "no", then trying to write up a proposal is
clearly a waste of time.
(2) Assuming a draft and mailing list are created, are people
willing to review and contribute? Do we need to start thinking
in terms of a WG for this issue alone? (Experience with NEWTRK
suggests to me that a WG with a broader charter would be a bad
idea.)
(3) Would the IESG be inclined to look on a proposal -- either a
request to Last Call a draft document or a WG request, depending
on (2)-- with favor? If the answer is, as it was with some
NEWTRK work (which, incidentally, would have eliminated this
problem), "we would rather you didn't pursue that", then I don't
believe this is a rock that we should start pushing uphill.
john
Disclaimer: rfc2821bis, now in last call, would clearly have
benefited from some changes along this line and thinking about
issues associated with it definitely got me motivated to think
about the problem. But it is already in Last Call, so any
changes that are made to the procedures will not affect its
processing in any way (although they might ultimately effect how
it, 821, 2821, and STD10 are identified).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally
privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received
this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf