RE: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

"Ed Juskevicius" <> Thu, 22 May 2008 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953D528C18E; Thu, 22 May 2008 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C66F3A67A2 for <>; Thu, 22 May 2008 07:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1a-9nFzYtke for <>; Thu, 22 May 2008 07:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A80528C27D for <>; Thu, 22 May 2008 07:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m4MEFWm12308; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:15:33 GMT
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:15:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
Thread-Index: Aci8DqQUJuxUBt1kRWOPfyCOSj13vgABYH8Q
References: <> <>
From: Ed Juskevicius <>
To: Steve Crocker <>, Marshall Eubanks <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
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


> Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class
> documents and hence not comparable to, say, "real"
> standards documents. Getting traditional identifiers attached
> to them might squelch some of this nonsense.

I have the impression that we would be pioneering the use of an ISSN to
identify a standards' series, if we choose to do this.  The "real"
standards from other organizations seem to be identified with individual

Would the purveyors of nonsense be squelched by an ISSN, or emboldened?
Some might cite our decision as yet another example of the IETF doing
something different and 'non-standard'.

Marshall, to your point:

> It is easy to find RFC's now, but it may not be in a century.
> This may seem silly, but I think that RFCs will still
> have relevance in a century and, having experience
> searching for 100+ year old astronomical publications
> and data, in my opinion, RFC's need to be cataloged in
> libraries.
> Libraries have running code for the maintenance of
> intellectual property over centuries; the IETF does not.

I agree with you 100%.  I think this is indeed a tangible and desirable

Best Regards,

Ed  J.
IETF mailing list