[rfc-i] Re: Status of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis?

Paul Hoffman / VPNC paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jun 11 14:14:00 PDT 2004


At 4:21 PM -0400 6/11/04, John C Klensin wrote:
>I note that 1id-guidelines.txt and the notorious and perhaps
>unlamented "id-nits" documents where both available online only,
>that the latter was often enforced as a set of binding rules by
>the IESG and the former was often (albeit sporadically and
>inconsistently) enforced by the secretariat.   I don't remember
>a lot of protests about that situation (except from myself),
>evidence of serious harm caused by it, or people using it as a
>precedent.

Your memory is probably faulty; I remember this coming up as a topic 
at least once a year at plenaries, and certainly often in the Apps 
area with the ADs.

>    The RFC Editor at least aspires to keeping a good
>balance between consistency and flexibility.

This is good. However, the document in question is updating an 
existing RFC that we working group chairs are supposed to enforce. 
Having a correct new RFC is much better than saying "you must follow 
this expired Internet Draft" to our document editors who we have been 
trying to convince to keep their documents up to date.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list