Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt> (Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document) to Best Current Practice

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive
>> removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes
>> sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do
>>
>> but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says:
>>     The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
>>     Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet
>>     protocol and service specifications.
>>
>> is a process requirement -
>> this requirement is the specific text that should be removed
>> and is worth spinning a RFC to do
>>    
> 
> Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from
> 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found
> a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the
> document that we're removing that too.
> 
>> and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd
>> paragraph in the same section
>>     An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall
>>     appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter.  This
>>     shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards
>>     actions.
>>
>> should also be removed since that is not being done either
>> and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that
>> does not actually exist
> 
> I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything?

Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always
at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL
the RFC Editor prefers to cite.)

      Brian