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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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?

pr

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