[rfc-i] Retirement of the RFC xx99 series

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Fri Dec 13 03:17:23 PST 2013

On 2013/12/13 18:33, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Peter,
> I've no problem with researching the possibility to re-use un-assigned
> numbers, plese do that

I also have no problem with somebody doing such research, but given that 
overall, there cannot be much more than about 300 free numbers (the max 
for 00/99 up to 10000 is around 100 each, and for others, 79 have 
already been counted).

300 free numbers probably lasts for a year or so, so it doesn't really 
make much of a difference, because we have to face the problem anyway. 
These kinds of problems don't get solved better by putting them off, 
only by being aware of them in due time.

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

Yes indeed. Actually, if somebody thinks that's a problem, I propose 
preparing and publishing an RFC entitled "The RFC 10000 Problem" and 
issuing it as RFC 10000 (or so), well before we get close to actually 
have to issue five-digit numbers. Maybe shooting for a publication date 
of 2014/04/01 would make sense?

Regards,   Martin.

> /Loa
> 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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list