61 of the 67 have nmemonic identifiers, like SMTP and MAIL. I would also lean
toward IETF-SMTP-2008.
I actually have mixed feelings about interop. Part of me says that going to
Internet Standard is mostly about removing cruft. However, in theory, a full
regression test is not over the top. I still vote for ad hoc. Let the IESG or,
since there are so few, the IAB, decide if this particular revision of that
protocol warrants a full redo of the interoperability report.
--
Sent from my wireless e-mail device. Sorry if terse. We all need lemonade: see
<http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade> for what lemonade is.
----- Original Message -----
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
To: Eric Burger; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thu Dec 06 18:25:39 2007
Subject: Re: Revising full standards
--On Thursday, 06 December, 2007 16:55 -0800 Eric Burger
<eburger(_at_)bea(_dot_)com> wrote:
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"?
Most of it would actually be "lessons learned from RFC 2821".
The only new issue introduced by 2821bis is the need, as some
have read the rules, to formally demonstrate that email works
and interoperates (not just whatever changes were introduced in
2821, but the whole business). Now, if you and a few thousand
other people get this message, I'd claim a reasonable case has
been made that it works, but one could always debate that.
On the other hand, the STD number situation is leading us into
silly states. For example, there are documents all around the
world that do what we told them, which is to write "implement
STD 10" for "support SMTP". Try the exercise of determining
what STD 10 is today (because a pointer to RFC 821 would be
wrong and one to 2821 would violate the rules). So one
alternate fix is to abandon STD numbers. Those silly states are
a bad idea and since, as you point out, there are only 67 full
standards, maybe we don't need the numbers.
john
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