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

John C Klensin john at jck.com
Fri Jun 11 13:13:50 PDT 2004



--On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:13:07 -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC
<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

>> Sorry, I don't get your point.  What is wrong with a living
>> document as a bridge.
> 
> In the IETF, this is usually considered a Bad Thing. If
> something is  ready to become an RFC, it should become an RFC.
> Otherwise, people  will assume that the "living document" is
> stable, and if it changes  later, there will be ugly surprises.

Paul, I'm not wild about the current state of things either, nor
am I wild about the example I'm about to cite, but I think it is
important to recognize the resource and priority issues that Bob
identifies.  

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

best,
   john





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list