[rfc-i] RFC 5000 on Internet Official Protocol Standards
braden at ISI.EDU
Fri May 9 09:59:52 PDT 2008
Well, thanks for your comments, anyway.
*> 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 error, in this case, belongs in the IAB and IESG. We asked to
circumvent 2026 and publish 5000 as a Standard, but the IETF has to
follow its own rules strictly, I guess, so we were told that we can
publish it only as Informational. The RFC Editor certainly agrees
with you on this one.
*> - 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 has taken 3 months to get permission from the IETF
*> - 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.
Actually, it shows exactly nothing about how fast the process of
editing and publishing goes. It does show how fast the IETF
management can make decisions.
*> - 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.
We would be very happy if you could please resurrect that person.
We miss him greatly. But you are greatly over-reacting about the
*> - On an editorial level, it references RFC 2026 but there is no
*> "References" section.
Well, we will give you this one.
*> 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.
I fail to see how that would have helped, given the situation.
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
*> --Paul Hoffman, Director
*> --VPN Consortium
*> rfc-interest mailing list
*> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest