RE: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> Tue, 12 July 2005 14:02 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsLLf-0007w4-83; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DsLLc-0007tV-BO for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23327 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns5a.townisp.com ([216.195.0.140] helo=ns5.townisp.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsLnp-0005TY-Kw for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:32:06 -0400
Received: from mail.blilly.com (dhcp-0-8-a1-c-fa-f7.cpe.townisp.com [216.49.158.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "marty.blilly.com", Issuer "Bruce Lilly" (not verified)) by ns5.townisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E9A2994B; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marty.blilly.com (marty.blilly.com [192.168.99.98] (may be forged)) by mail.blilly.com with ESMTP id j6CE2rZi019530(8.13.1/8.13.1/mail.blilly.com /etc/sendmail.mc.mail 1.26 2005/06/24 20:47:59) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:53 -0400
Received: from marty.blilly.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by marty.blilly.com with ESMTP id j6CE2qRO019529(8.13.1/8.13.1/blilly.com submit.mc 1.3 2005/04/08 12:29:31) (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:53 -0400
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Organization: Bruce Lilly
To: NEWTRK <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>, john.loughney@nokia.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:51 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1
References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D6CE8E8@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D6CE8E8@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200507121002.51283@mail.blilly.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: NEWTRK <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Tue July 12 2005 02:02, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > What I would like is that the RFC Index would accurately convey the current > status of any RFC. So, if I needed to check the status of a protocol which > I am not intimately familiar with, I would not need to subscribe to a WG > mailing list or ask an IESG/IAB/WG chair to interpret the RFC List for me. I believe that the rfc-index does accurately convey status to the extent that it can w/o stepping on the IESG's toes. E.g. 0822 Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages. D. Crocker. Aug-13-1982. (Format: TXT=109200 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0733) (Obsoleted by RFC2822) (Updated by RFC1123, RFC1138, RFC1148, RFC1327, RFC2156) (Also STD0011) (Status: STANDARD) says that RFC 822 has been designated as a full Standard (and the IESG has initiated no Standards Action to change that status), and that it has been updated by a number of subsequently issued RFCs and eventually has been obsoleted by RFC 2822. It also notes that 822 had obsoleted RFC 733. > if the RFC Editor was willing & a Tools > Team member was willing (& at least a few people thought it was useful) perhaps > we (together) could mock-up an improved RFC Index. The root of the problem is that a change in status requires IESG action, the IETF having given the IESG the authority and responsibility for said action via BCP 9 (RFC 2026). Now if the IETF wants to take that authority away from the IESG (which has not lived up to its responsibility under BCP 9) and hand it to some other group, that's a possibility. Failing some procedural fix to actually update status in a responsible and timely manner, there's not much that can really be done with the index' content w.r.t. status. Now it may well be the case that the three levels of the Standards Track are insufficient to convey nuances such as a technology having a high degree of maturity, but the specification (having been rewritten) is at a low level of maturity. Addressing that distinction would also seem to require a change to BCP 9 to differentiate maturity of a technology from that of a specification. Until we have a procedure for establishing consensus-based separate designations for technology/specification maturity (or delegate decision for one or the other rather than using IETF consensus) there is again little that can be done with the index content. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- RE: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- RE: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Steve Miller
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Nicholas Staff
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Eliot Lear
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Nicholas Staff
- Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Bruce Lilly
- Re: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. His… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic John C Klensin
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Ted Hardie
- Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Bob Braden
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Jeffrey Hutzelman
- RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic john.loughney
- RE: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. His… john.loughney
- Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. His… Bruce Lilly