ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: History behind RFC numbers

2014-10-02 06:53:54
Can someone tell me what is broken?

/Loa

Sent from my iPad

On 02 Oct 2014, at 13:46, Hosnieh Rafiee 
<hosnieh(_dot_)rafiee(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> wrote:


We have RFC version zero we may need a new version. We can re-structure the 
RFC-number so we can say Area (A one digit), WG (WW two digits). The RFC 
numbers in digits meaning (1AWWSS). This structure type is 1 (or version 1), 
our current structure with no meaning can have type 0. 


[Hosnieh] Interesting idea :-). Probably worth to discuss in rfc-interest 
list(?!). Because at the moment when someone talk about RFC number and if you 
didn't want to use it, you don't know which area it is related to unless you 
check everything on the internet. Sometimes the titles are not also good 
chosen and so general and one need to review the abstract and sometimes 
introduction so that he/she understands what area it is related to. 

 Furthermore, within meetings/on-list of a WG we don't need to refer WG-RFC 
with large numbers but just say in speech our SS numbers for the WG, but 
when writing within draft we need to reference full number of RFC1AWWSS or 
RFC02460 or RFC01. 

Best,
Hosnieh