[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 28 03:18:49 PST 2010


28.11.2010 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 28.11.2010 12:06, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have recently made a draft which, I think, should
>> be discussed on this Mail List.
>>
>> The idea is to make a series of RFCs which would
>> classify all Pre-IETF RFCs in accordance with RFC 2026.
>>
>> This draft is the first of this series and covers RFCs 1-100.
>>
>> You can find it here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-pre-ietf-rfc-classifying-p1/?include_text=1 
>>
>>
>> Could you please review it?
>>
>> Any suggestions for improvements are welcome.
>> ...
>
> It says:
>
>>    The corresponding 'Status of this Memo' section is to be put in these
>>    documents. The following disclaimer should also be put in them:
>>
>>    "Disclaimer
>>
>>    The Informational category was assigned to this RFC in accordance to
>>    RFC-to-be. Note that original RFC did not contain the 'Status of this
>>    Memo' and this sections."
>
> RFCs are immutable. We can ask the RFC Editor to update the RFC 
> database, but the actual text in the RFCs is not going to change.
It is considered. But are there any way to mark the RFC with the 
corresponding
'ST. of th. Memo' section without changing it? And what would you say about
RFC 60 with its 'modern' 'St. of th. Memo' section while other RFCs of 
that period
do NOT contain ANY 'St. of th. Memo' section? Isn't it modifying the RFC?
A link: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc60.txt
>
> Best regards, Julian
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list