On 2015-01-02 16:13, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 02 Jan 2015, at 14:20, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
rfc20bis
The original intention was to have a low-effort procedure to recognize RFC 20
for its standards status.
I continue to believe this is the right thing to do.
I do believe it would be a worthwhile effort to think about the place that
ASCII has in Internet protocols in 2015, but if there is a result from that,
that would be a quite different document.
The current discussion is to a large extent about the way the original RFC was
turned into the online version.
AFAIK, we haven’t had this discussion at all for any of the reconstructed RFCs.
And I’m not sure that the rules for new RFCs fit with the reconstructed ones.
The original RFC has been issued on paper, and that is what shouldn’t change, not necessarily the (always less
than perfect) rendition as plaintext. But there is a cost to giving up the translation of the “RFCs never
change” mantra into “RFC files never change”, even for the reconstructed files, and I’m not
sure this can of worms needs to be opened.
...
Agreed.
So if this exercise is supposed to make sense, we'll first have to find
out whether the rfc 20 text file we're looking at actually is a useful
conversion of the original RFC 20. If it's not, there's no point in
having a discussion about re-classification until we all can read the
same document.
Best regards, Julian