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

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> in line
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
>   wrote:
>
>
>   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?

I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's "it 
is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not 
actually exist".

Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is 
this another candidate for a short draft?

Spencer