[rfc-i] FYI sub-series and RFC 1150 - proposal to update

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 20:52:46 PDT 2011


26.04.2011 12:41, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> I have just posted a proposed 1150bis.  This document reflects the IESG discussion to date
> [...]
>
>> draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-00
> Russ,
>
> Thanks for posting the draft. You've seen a variation of what follows so this is for public record:
>
> First, It is not clear to me whether the FYI series is IETF Stream only or cross stream. The last FYI was an independent submission (before the streams existed, but you get the idea). I do not know that whether that was a conscious decision. Granted, at the time the RFC editor put the approval process with the User Services WG and that is closely aligned with the current concept of an IETF Stream. To me that is an indication that if other streams would want to use the FYI series we need clarification.
Since RFC 1150 mentions that:

>    All FYIs are submitted to the IETF User Services Working Group for
>     review prior to their submission to the RFC Editor.
and User Services WG was a part of the IETF, I think FYIs were 
considered then to be a part of what we now call IETF stream.  I do not 
know for sure what was about RFC 4949, but I think it was given a review 
of User Services WG or other WG in User Services Area before publication.

As far as I can see (but I do not for sure as well) there are no FYIs 
approved by the IRTF or IAB.  And they are very unlikely to appear, IMO.
> Second, I am happy that the IESG will not issue more FYIs on the IETF stream, and I do not expect other streams will publish documents on the sub-series (partly because of the need for clarification in that case).
+1
> Third, I even think it makes sense to burry the whole lot.
>
> But, fourth,  I think this is an Editorial Matter. Mainly since the FYI was established by the RFC Editor and because a vision about sub-series is something that we would expect a future RSE to develop.
>
> Therefore I wouldn't rush the formal cremation of the FYI sub-series. The intention to not approve any publications on the FYI series is currently sufficient.
The last 2 FYIs were published in August 2007 while the other ones - not 
later than 2001.  These two RFCs were given a FYI number just because 
they obsoleted another FYI.  Therefore, in fact, there have not been 
FYIs issued to almost 10 years.  I think a formal record of the decision 
to close the series (not only to discontinue publications documents in 
it) is a good idea, after all.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
>
> - --Olaf
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
> I will start to use a new PGP key (ID 0x3B6AAA64) at the beginning
> of May 2011.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: This message is locally signed.
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk22ky0ACgkQtN/ca3YJIoe6bQCgyeM2o+0Cx4qnUapySoFQ0iZ9
> ByQAn1rjf+rws/jUub9eS7BalPDBDvkk
> =Cq8n
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list