ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt> (Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document) to Best Current Practice

2013-09-03 17:17:35
Comment at the end...

On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
in line

On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick 
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
  wrote:


  at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
paragraph in the same section
     An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
     appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
     shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
     actions.

should also be removed since that is not being done either
and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that
does not actually exist
      
I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything?
     
Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status
is always
at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL
the RFC Editor prefers to cite.)
   
I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm
not sure we need to make further reference to it.

Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the
purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph.
Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the
rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it.
Anyone want to speak strongly for or against?

I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's "it
is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not
actually exist".

Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is
this another candidate for a short draft?

<rant class="short">So that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet
another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that
update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves.</rant>

Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but
it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it.

  Brian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>