ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The RFC xx99 Series

2013-10-08 13:39:52
Or how about reserving "RFC 3399" for use as an example RFC number...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Eric Gray 
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
Maybe we should reserve RFC 3399 for an April 1st RFC?

--
E

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of RFC Series 
Editor
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:51 PM
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc: rsoc(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
Subject: The RFC xx99 Series

Greetings,

The RFC Editor is proposing to retire the practice of publishing RFCs xx99, 
the Request for Comments Summary for RFC Numbers xx00-xx99.  In December 
1991, RFC 1099 was the first "Request for Comments Summary"
RFC published.  It provides a list of document titles, authors, date of 
publication, and abstracts for each of the RFCs published in the range 1000 - 
1099.  Since that time, through the time that RFC 3299 was published, a new 
summary RFC was published every 100 RFCs, and RFC numbers ending with 99 were 
reserved for these summary documents.  RFC
3399 was never published (for various reasons), though RFCs 3499 and
3599 were.  RFC 3599 was the last of these summary documents to be published 
in December 2003.

These snapshots are no longer needed because up-to-date data is available 
online.  RFC abstracts are available using the RFC search engine 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php) and they are included in 
rfc-index.xml.  RFCs xx99 summaries were never requested by the Internet 
Community and are not currently filling a need; therefore, the RFC Editor is 
retiring the publication of the RFC summary documents.
RFC numbers typically reserved for these documents (i.e., numbers ending with 
99) may be assigned to future RFCs.

If there are any concerns about this course of action, please comment by 
October 18, 2013, on the rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org mailing list.

Thank you,
Heather Flanagan, RSE

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