[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu Oct 10 07:45:10 PDT 2013
On 10/8/13 12:21 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> 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
> Does it cost IETF anything to keep creating the xx99's?
> They should not be discontinued.
I appreciate the input. To answer your question, yes, there is a cost
in creating xx99 documents - it requires RFC Production Center staff
time and effort to pull these together, on the order of several hours at
a random periodicity dependent on submission and publication rates.
The "external search" of the publication database by the RFC search
function is not something I would consider external - it is code written
in-house, run against an in-house database. I believe it does
sufficiently meet the need of providing information on the Series for
members of the community.
-Heather Flanagan, RSE
More information about the rfc-interest