Trying to resist - but can't help myself.
Just need to point out that Working Groups, and even Areas, are pretty
fluid.
I can think of quite a few cases where RFCabcd was developed by WG X in
Area Y, but RFCefgh, which is a DIRECT update of RFCabcd, was developed in
WG Z in Area W.
Janet
"ietf" <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote on 10/02/2014 08:16:42 AM:
From: Hosnieh Rafiee <hosnieh(_dot_)rafiee(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>
To: ietf <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Date: 10/02/2014 08:17 AM
Subject: RE: History behind RFC numbers
Sent by: "ietf" <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Can someone tell me what is broken?
Nothing is broken. It is only some new ideas for pointing to RFCs
and making the numbers meaningful so that when someone hear RFC
xxxxxxx that person knows what its general area and what WGs it
might be related to.
Because at the moment the RFC numbers are only numbers that nobody
can get more information only by knowing the number. Maybe just
guess it might be for year 2014 or year 2013... because of its start
but nothing more and sometimes the titles are really long and cannot
be used as a reference.