[rfc-i] Substantial revision

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue May 29 11:04:19 PDT 2012

On 5/29/12 11:47 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 10:04 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On 5/29/12 10:43 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>>> Change control can be useful for IDs (using the author's source, which
>>> might support revision), but very few RFCs are ever "bis'd",
>> Really?  That's very surprising to me.  Do you have any stats to back
>> that
>> up?  I would have guessed that something like 20% of them eventually get
>> bis'd, which is significant.
> There are 116 current -bis IDs.
> There are 107 current IDs based on the Word template.
> Both out of approx. 2600 current IDs.
> Counting -bis from RFCs is a lot harder, since the term 'bis' is dropped.
>>> and benefit from a clean-slate revision more than mere incremental
>>> editing.
>> Perhaps those folks need to release their first version more quickly,
>> then.
> IMO, an RFC that is *intended* to be useful for less than 5 years is a
> waste of time. Better that we have fewer RFCs that have the long view.

I'm currently working on 6122bis (which will re-use the output of the
PRECIS WG), and thus 6122 (which re-uses Stringprep) is intended to be
useful for much less than 5 years. I suppose I'm wasting my time by
trying to define a better approach to the handling of non-ASCII strings
and identifiers in application protocols.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list