[rfc-i] Updating one paragraph of RFC 2026 to reflect current practice

Bradner, Scott sob at harvard.edu
Fri May 29 13:57:47 PDT 2015


seems to me that referring to a specific version is quite important - the feature that the document assumes
is in the ID (and is referring the reader to) may get removed in later versions

an history aside - the language in 2026 comes from the deal done to start the internet draft concept - it would be OK only
if there IDs basically were never considered “real” documents 

that was a long  time ago and well overtaken by events

Scott

> On May 29, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:44:27AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> Draft -03 is no more or less of a "work in progress" than an RFC because both can be updated later. Numerous RFCs are updated later; in fact you and I are co-authors one one that we *expect* to have a -bis on after it is published.
>> 
> 
> By this line of argument, and given that Independent Submissions get
> RFC numbers too, we should just do away with the distinction between
> I-Ds and RFCs altogether, it seems.  I have to agree with Heather that
> if this is a discussion to have, it's one to have in the IETF
> community and not just on this list.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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