or, best of all, we can remove confusing strings and numbers with the very
specific and unique OIDs for documents, protocols, and people. :)
last century, the RFC series and the IEN series that preceded it used the
numbering sequence as an index into the catalog of related materials.
occasionally a number or numbers would be “earmarked” for material that was
supposed to be forthcoming, but never arrived (for one reason or another).
such a system worked very well for nearly five decades. but it does not work
for a few of the more recent participants in the system. which is fine, most
of
us are adaptable and are not committed to the status quo, IF you have a more
workable solution.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 2October2014Thursday, at 4:46, 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