[rfc-i] RFC 5000 on Internet Official Protocol Standards
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri May 9 09:24:26 PDT 2008
At 9:09 AM +0200 5/9/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5000.txt
Maybe thanks are not in order. While it's certainly time to update
STD 1, I can't remember an RFC with as many problems as this one.
- It says that it's Informational, while all previous versions of STD
1 have been Standards Track. In specific, RFC 5000 obsoletes RFC
3700. RFC 3700 and its predecessors were on standards track; RFC 5000
is Informational. It's hard to see how a document can both be
Informational and STD. This seems like a glaring error.
- The data is not timely; according to the abstract it's describing
the situation as of almost three months ago. If the purpose was to
obsolete RFC 3700, a one-page RFC that just described rfcxx00.html
would have been much more useful.
- It shows how slowly the RFC publishing process is running. This RFC
sat in the queue for almost three months, as the first sentence of
the abstract makes clear.
- The "author" is an organization, not a person, breaking with
decades of practice. This could lead to companies using only the
company's name without a responsible individual's name for
Informational RFCs that describe their protocols; that would be a bad
change from the current policy.
- On an editorial level, it references RFC 2026 but there is no
All of these problems (other than the slowness) could have been
avoided if the authors had published an Internet Draft and asked for
comments, as is normal for documents that will become RFCs (other
than April 1 RFCs). I'm sure people on this list would have been
happy to review the draft and make suggestions.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest