On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Janet P Gunn <jgunn6(_at_)csc(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Or developed by a person and used for a number of years before being
standardized in the IETF at all, such as GRE.
I think there are two broad categories of nomenclature. One is what we use,
enumerating RFCs. The ITU and IEEE do something in naming; IEEE 802.11ac, for
example, is downward compatible with 802.11a/b/g/n, and yes, we call them by
their working group names. There are other bodies, such as the CCITT, that date
their updates - X.25 in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1888, and 1992 were all "X.25-date”,
and generically referred to as “X.25”.
I don’t know that any given approach is “right”. They are, each of them, “what
we use”, complete with the benefits and caveats that go with them.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail