[rfc-i] Classifying pre-IETF RFCs

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 1 01:21:40 PST 2010


30.11.2010 18:27, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 8:19 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Some notes about pre-IETF RFCs classifying.
>>
>> Now I agree that early RFCs does not need modern
>> classification. However I think it would be acceptable
>> if we mark them in accordance with RFC1000 (but
>> if they have RFC2026 category, they will remain it
>> while getting the RFC1000 status).
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>
> I think RFC1000 exists, which is fine. A new RFC could provide a 
> different view of those first 1000 RFCs, or pre-2026 RFCs as a whole. 
> There could be many such roadmaps, and they need not agree.
>
> Regardless, though, these are just roadmap docs, NOT labels that 
> belong in an index - largely because they are post-facto 
> organizations, not a-priori tracks decided by the community or the 
> authors at the time they were submitted.
>
> Joe
>
My proposal is to do in this way:
for instance we have RFC 102 which has unknown status
but is assigned by RFC 1000 as "2. Host/Host Protocol".
So it should be labeled as "Host/Host Protocol as per RFC1000
(pub. as Unknown)".
Another example: RFC 717 is Historic, but per RFC1000 is
"1. Administrative". So it will be marked as "Historic/Administrative
as per RFC1000".

To my mind, if RFC Database reflects the status of RFC at the
moment of publishing, RFC 1000 is OK for classifying pre-1310
RFCs (as RFC 1310 make the classifying system 'modern').

I'll try to make the corresponding draft in a week.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list