[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Tue Oct 8 12:38:22 PDT 2013

On 10/8/2013 3:21 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Hello.
> I would like to express my concern about retiring the xx99 RFCs. I
> think they still fill a need, especially over longer periods of time,
> and should not be discontinued.
> It was stated that they are no longer needed because "up to date
> information" is available online, and the RFC search engine is
> mentioned. This makes RFC indexing dependent on the operation of
> external applications, such as RFC search, or Google, or whatever.
> While I am sure that the operators of the RFC search engine and of
> Google firmly plan on operating their service for the duration, the
> "duration" can end or be interrupted (as is being discovered by all
> the users of the NIST web document servers right now).
> Also, the RFC docs have been and will only continue to be important
> historical and foundational documents, and should have their own
> in-line canonical summary index in the same format, for inclusion into
> larger document collections, and into historical archives and
> printings.
> Does it cost IETF anything to keep creating the xx99's?
> They should not be discontinued.

-1. They haven't been generated in over a decade, and the world has
continued on just fine without them. This decision just acknowledges

    Tony Hansen

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list