[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Oct 8 20:53:45 PDT 2013


-1 to Mark, +1 to Tony and the original proposal. Reality already works 
fine.

Regards,   Martin.


On 2013/10/09 4:38, Tony Hansen wrote:
> 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
> reality.
>
>      Tony Hansen
> _______________________________________________
> 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