--On Thursday, October 02, 2014 13:31 -0700 Bob Braden
<braden(_at_)meritmail(_dot_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Now, a few years ago at a meeting of some sort of IETF
reformation group (I forget the name), I advocated
the development of *structured protocol names*.
The ill-fated NEWTRK, which also included proposals to extend
the STD number model into comprehensive descriptions of just
what was, and was not, in a standard on a more dynamic basis
that static/ archival RFCs.
RFC
(document) numbers do NOT fill that bill. We need
both RFC document numbers and protocol names.
Possible properties of protocol names might be:
(1) names, not numbers!!
(2) Probably hierarchical; think domain names.
(3) Might incorporate the "Obsoletes" attribute by some sort
of generation number.
("TCP.1", "TCP.2," ...)
(4) Should be backwards compatible in general with our
inherited protocol names.
(5) Would be assigned by the IESG early in the standards
process, e.g., in the WG charter from the beginning.
But of course YMMV.
yep.
john