Re: Question about STD format...

Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net> Mon, 29 April 1996 15:02 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11985; 29 Apr 96 11:02 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11979; 29 Apr 96 11:02 EDT
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09654; 29 Apr 96 11:02 EDT
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA19146>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:42:34 -0700
Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA19139>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:42:26 -0700
Received: from privateer.windrose.omaha.ne.us (ppp33.nfinity.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA09504>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:42:19 -0700
Received: by privateer.windrose.omaha.ne.us; Mon Apr 29 08:41 CDT 1996
Message-Id: <3184C722.3D67@ds.internic.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:41:54 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
Organization: InterNIC Database and Directory Services
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4c)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@mids.org>
Cc: Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@isi.edu>, uswg@isi.edu
Subject: Re: Question about STD format...
References: <199604261517.KAA28260@akasha.tic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uswg@isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

John S. Quarterman wrote:
> 
> >Joyce-
> >
> >Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I think it
> >might be so here goes...
> >
> >We are setting up a couple of Z39.50 1992 databases for things like the
> >RFC, FYI, STD series, the internet-drafts, etc.  I have discovered that
> >while I-Ds, RFCs, and FYIs have some document identification embedded
> >in them, the STDs don't.  The only consistent information is the
> >RFC number.  I have gone throguh and embedded the STD number in the
> >header a la the FYI series.  How do I go about getting these out
> >to the world?
> 
> Since STD numbers refer at different times to different RFCs,
> wasn't the plan for STDs to have the current RFC number specified
> in a master document, rather than in the current RFC?
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 

That may be true.  If so, it creates some difficulties for what we
are trying to do (sigh)...

Ryan