Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU> Thu, 22 May 2008 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53E128C1BB; Thu, 22 May 2008 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF1628C1C6; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnHo8RIdi+O5; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8755428C153; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4M9cVdg015976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 May 2008 02:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m4M9cVbU015973; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 02:38:31 -0700
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <926E053DEA184164287A0F67@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <926E053DEA184164287A0F67@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211>
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 May 2008 08:31:29 -0700
Cc: Working Group Chairs <>, IAB <>, IETF Discussion <>, Melinda Shore <>, IAOC <>, Julian Reschke <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Two additional observations:
> (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
> antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications.
> I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN
> made more useful, if we treated RFCs as "authoritative paper,
> copies available online" rather than "online documents".   If
> that requires the RFC Editor or IASA to print out all of the
> RFCs published in a given month, throw them into an envelope,
> and put the envelope into the smail, I imagine we can afford
> that.

	there is historical precident for this.
	my question earlier, regarding the whole series,
	includes early, paper-only RFC's, historic, etc.
	so the folks thinking that a simple change in the 
	current tools set will make it all good might have
	overlooked dealing w/ legacy documents.

	there are also books already published that are RFC
	compilations.  they already have ISSN numbers.

>      john


Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

IETF mailing list