[rfc-i] Retirement of the RFC xx99 series

Loa Andersson loa at pi.nu
Fri Dec 13 01:33:43 PST 2013


I've no problem with researching the possibility to re-use un-assigned
numbers, plese do that

exactly what is the problem with using 5 digit RFC numbers? We used
three digits for quite some time.


On 2013-12-13 17:11, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:38:50AM -0800, RFC Series Editor wrote:
>> the RFC Editor has proposed to retire the practice of publishing RFCs
>> xx99.  Based on the feedback received, this action is now formally
>> concluded and these documents will no longer be created and published.
> the explanation suggests that the '99 numbers _may_ be assigned in the
> future.  With the 4-digit RFC number space due to expire before 2020,
> there are now some serious issues around number conservation and re-assignment.
> This goes beyond the '99 series but relates to other unassigned numbers, as well.
> Of these unassigned numbers, there are at least two kinds: 79 RFCs (ending with
> RFC 4637) are explicitly marked "Not Issued.".  Of the RFC numbers below 7000,
> 94 have not yet been assigned -- in addition to those marked "Not Issued.". (*)
> The latter category includes '00 and '99 vacancies and includes numbers
> before 4637 (marking the end of the "Not Issued." era) and after
> (NB: 4637 is the elder of a pair of twin primes).
> I would like to suggest some research be conducted on the number exhaustion
> problem to inform a debate about the future use of unissued numbers of either kind.
> -Peter
> (*) apologies for dot-quote-dot
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


Loa Andersson                        email: loa at mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa at pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list