[rfc-i] Retirement of the RFC xx99 series
sginoza at amsl.com
Fri Dec 13 08:58:37 PST 2013
Thank you for your input. In terms of RFCs, the numbering is not an issue, as the name of the RFC is RFC 1, for example, as opposed to RFC 0001. In terms of tooling, the RFC Editor is aware of the RFC 10,000 issue and we have it on our agenda to identify the tooling updates that are needed. We do not anticipate reusing the previously unassigned number gaps, as numbers are infinite. Note that, assuming about 300 publications a year, it will take us about 9 years to reach RFC 10,000.
On Dec 13, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:38:50AM -0800, RFC Series Editor wrote:
>> the RFC Editor has proposed to retire the practice of publishing RFCs
>> xx99. Based on the feedback received, this action is now formally
>> concluded and these documents will no longer be created and published.
> the explanation suggests that the '99 numbers _may_ be assigned in the
> future. With the 4-digit RFC number space due to expire before 2020,
> there are now some serious issues around number conservation and re-assignment.
> This goes beyond the '99 series but relates to other unassigned numbers, as well.
> Of these unassigned numbers, there are at least two kinds: 79 RFCs (ending with
> RFC 4637) are explicitly marked "Not Issued.". Of the RFC numbers below 7000,
> 94 have not yet been assigned -- in addition to those marked "Not Issued.". (*)
> The latter category includes '00 and '99 vacancies and includes numbers
> before 4637 (marking the end of the "Not Issued." era) and after
> (NB: 4637 is the elder of a pair of twin primes).
> I would like to suggest some research be conducted on the number exhaustion
> problem to inform a debate about the future use of unissued numbers of either kind.
> (*) apologies for dot-quote-dot
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest