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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 06:51:13 PST 2010


28.11.2010 13:32, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 28.11.2010 12:18, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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
>
> What do you mean by "it is considered"?
It means that I know it. However I don't find any other way to mark RFC 
xxxx as <foo>, for instance.
>
>> corresponding
>> 'ST. of th. Memo' section without changing it? And what would you say 
>> about
>
> I don't think so. The information on the RFC reflects the situation at 
> time of publication, not the current one. For that, there's the RFC 
> database.
But RFC 2026 has imperative rule: all RFCs are to be assigned as St. Tr. 
. . .
>
>> 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
>
> It might; if it does, it's a bug that happened when the original RFC 
> was transformed into machine-readable form.
According to the general statement, RFCs are not to be changed. But 
original RFC did not contain
the section and, IMO, we have every right to ask the RFC Editor to make 
a correction.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Another note:

28.11.2010 18:22, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> What is your motivation for this work? Is there an actual need for knowing the status of any of these RFCs? Is it just a desire for tidiness?
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>
It is alignment with RFC 2026, as I have mentioned.

However I think we can just ask RFC Ed. to mark some of RFCs as .... 
without changing its entity.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list