[rfc-i] RFC2223bis [RFC Format requirements draft]

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:26:31 PDT 2012


On 21/09/2012 22:20, SM wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> At 12:57 21-09-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Actually, that's an interesting question that came up while we were
>> drafting the document.  Given that 2223bis was never published, is it
>> appropriate to refer to that document? Half the folks said yes, half
>> said no.

It's partly my fault that 2223bis was never published, since I was General
Area Director for part of the relevant period. It's true that the style
guide part of it was used as the de facto reference, but the other part of
it was completely superseded by more recent RFCs (4844, 6635, etc.). I think
it would be very confusing to publish it as an RFC as SM suggested, but
perfectly reasonable to mention it as a "work in progress" reference.

   Brian

> 
> For the folks who have been saying no, you could always remind them that
> it was established practice to reference 2223bis.  The RFC Editor could
> publish 2223bis as Informational for the purposes of this exercise. 
> Once the RFC Editor is done with it, it shouldn't be a problem to
> reclassify the RFC as Historic.  The argument is that it's for the
> archival series.  A "work in progress" reference could be used if it's
> easier.  The RFC Editor also has the ability to make use of its
> long-lived URLs.
> 
>> I see your point, but saying "non-US or other people with a tiny
>> alphabet" didn't sound good either.  Any suggestions?
> 
>   Romanization of the author name will no longer be necessary; authors will
>   be able to write their names in their own language.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> 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