[rfc-i] RFC Style guide

Dave CROCKER dhc at dcrocker.net
Sun Jan 30 10:42:15 PST 2011



On 1/30/2011 9:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> Here's my start at the rule:
>>
>> If something is highly ephemeral or subject to frequent changes, it should
>> be issued on a web page.  If something is more stable, and especially if it
>> represents IETF "policy", it needs to be published as an RFC.
>
> Defining the difference between "frequent changes" and "more stable" will be
> challenging.  That is, where is the line between the two.

It will only be challenging if we operate with the rather amusing expectation 
that we are likely to apply the distinction with precision and consistency.

Since I don't suffer that particular delusion, I think it's fine to assert the 
distinction in generic terms like these, and then let the individuals doing the 
work make the determination, subject to the usual community approval or push-back.

This is not the sort of decision that is irreversible, so it really is ok for 
the 'wrong' choice to be made.  It can be fixed.


> One thing that would be useful, is to still have a web site the points to the
> current draft/proposed versions, and the "more stable" RFC version(s).  Going
> to RFC versions, doesn't mean we can't continue to have web sites for the
> policy documents.

+1!

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list