[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued
housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Oct 10 08:09:33 PDT 2013
Heather and Mark:
>> 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.
> Hello Mark,
> 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
I also find that the RFC Index, which is updated each time that an RFC is published to be very helpful.
More information about the rfc-interest