[rfc-i] Proper status for pre-IETF RFCs currently with "unknown"
touch at isi.edu
Sun Nov 6 08:09:48 PST 2011
On Nov 6, 2011, at 6:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I think a little more than that, actually, but that is probably
> most of it. The complex dependencies that SM and others have
> pointed out are another piece of the puzzle.
> I've been involved in a few side-conversations about this and
> have a different proposal. It is a little bit radical, but, I
> think, much cleaner and easier.
> As background and using today's vocabulary, the IETF/IESG have
> no obvious authority to create categories or even assign them
> for anything but the IETF Stream. Strictly speaking, the IESG's
> statements about assignment of Historic classifications applies
> only to IETF Stream documents. It would be rude at best for
> the IESG to try to reclassify Independent Stream, IAB Stream, or
> IRTF Stream documentsl I suggest that principle extends to
> documents created before there was an IETF and even longer
> before the IETF started publishing (or requesting the RFC Editor
> to publish) "standards track" documents in the RFC Series.
I could not agree more.
> So I propose that we ask the RFC Editor to create a new
> category, called, e.g., "ARPANET". The list of categories in
> RFC 2026 need not be changed (unless the IETF Stream wants to
> use it for IETF Stream documents) because, seen as above, the
> categories in 2026 are relevant to the IETF Stream. We then
> reclassify all of the ARPANET-period Network Working Group
> documents, or at least those that are listed as "UNKNOWN", into
> that category.
For exactly the reasons *you* state above, this is completely inappropriate.
I appreciate and agree with the goal of differentiating groups of RFCs.
That requires creating names/streams for NEW RFCs. Suggestions to add/modify/reclassify these old, pre-IESG RFCs need to be off the table.
I appreciate the problem it causes. It requires the IESG (and the IETF) to create its own series and names, which need to earn their own reputation independently. That time is long overdue, IMO.
More information about the rfc-interest