[rfc-i] RFC 5000 on Internet Official Protocol Standards

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Fri May 9 09:59:52 PDT 2008


Well, thanks for your comments, anyway.

  *> >
  *> >Thanks.
  *> 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.

We agree.

  *> - 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
  *> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list