[rfc-i] Substantial revision

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 11:19:48 PDT 2012

On 5/29/2012 11:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/29/12 12:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 5/29/12 11:47 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 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.
>> Certainly not, but IMO you're wasting time by creating an interim
>> solution, rather than one intended to be useful past a 5-year horizon
>> (if that's the case).
> We thought Stringprep was forever.

Then you didn't create 6122 with the intent of generating a -bis within 
5 years.

Regardless, it shouldn't take all that long to convert from .txt into 
xml2rfc, Word, or nroff formats. There's benefit to having a clean 
version from which to start, regardless.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list