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

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

in line

On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>   
>>> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>>>     
>>>> ...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3...
>>>>       
>>> 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.
>>>     
> 
> Here's what I've got as a replacement for section 1:
> 
>   RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and its predecessors call for the publication of
>   an RFC describing the status of IETF protocols:
> 
>      The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official
>      Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all
>      Internet protocol and service specifications.
> 
>   The "Internet Official Protocol Standards" document, now as RFC 5000
>   [RFC5000], has always been listed in the Internet Standard series as
>   STD 1.  However, the document has not been kept up to date in recent
>   years, and it has fallen out of use in favor of the online list
>   produced by the RFC Editor [STDS-TRK].  The IETF no longer sees the
>   need for the document to be maintained.  Therefore, this document
>   updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026], effectively removing the above mentioned
>   paragraph from section 6.1.3, along with the paragraph from section
>   2.1 that states:
> 
>      The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
>      summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
>      Protocol Standards" [1].  This RFC shows the level of maturity and
>      other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service
>      specification (see section 3).
> 
>   and the paragraph from section 3.3 that states:
> 
>      The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
>      requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in
>      this section.  This RFC is updated periodically.  In many cases,
>      more detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
>      protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be
>      found in appropriate ASs.
> 
>   Additionally, this document obsoletes RFC 5000 [RFC5000], the current
>   incarnation of that document, and requests that the IESG move that
>   document (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status.
> 
> Makes me go over 2 pages, but such is life.

life is hard sometimes :-)

the above text works for me

> 
>>>> 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.)
>>   
> 
> I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure we need to make further reference to it.
> 
> Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against?

no strong feeling either way

Scott

> 
> pr
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>