IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact on the RFC series document production

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323F0120025 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OrnVSFfHcSHJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE6512000F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A76E47D; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:46:40 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=qt1dRb3DtVRPLqKr66ZrHkn/vbrjC5lqUdYx7421U S0=; b=EJCJBMbDisToZ3Ed3ofMEcKwePPUdmkyRqHf1KWC1AsIkUmf00YR/7Ml1 vNHzS279H8kjU1YovjIt/SBbtAMr0l5bwdTl0kdj3NTl7c5qugtr0B7vl56h3GYG xo7gvo7zbTFw6UYZHfTqLbk/wB2jvY2mnIjW8W4lzXLFeoGAgoyxg1/qB+PnidT/ vSkGg2S8eGteVDnJG5BJPmVLLjFKhCVmClFRbs79gunRakdfw4e5DqdjQVZjF/RM NFIdzqgdX9Gv3QiaL5eq/ELXrpoTHJATxW0K77s3GOGNbYpf4KlXSVGPLP6w9f7N AVVlYHT5fDxEpzMsMYz78IcT2TxVg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:n6GXXUJ_8cgQdFHLdDcX23OUKTkfZZfEAWa70UZI5ZE7Q8a9NOZo-g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrhedugddufeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:n6GXXauEpil3NA_MVp5Ejb88yN_lWSdFE6nSrnycjznBl0lrFfW2eg> <xmx:n6GXXWZ8nwOyCRpCw147yfWQRN9SGukcHjlQu1joGd2R8NwMlRBQ0g> <xmx:n6GXXa3toqgIhGwwB1sFQj7urBxa82l8H240vP_0jqcM1Rk-Iy2YVA> <xmx:n6GXXRUr5BM-rNZamwx38pKTza5tbJEzHDGV9-4xZFrUbJj6wwLfug>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CA23D80063; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact on the RFC series document production
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <394203C8F4EF044AA616736F@PSB> <4097464f-d038-2439-5ca5-70bac46b25ea@huitema.net> <69DAA6BBBE243BAD98926154@PSB> <371c3b14-8bfc-a476-3ff9-7268485bad12@huitema.net> <87a3e050-6e94-fcb0-70b8-cb907a029a0f@comcast.net> <20191004164815.GG5002@localhost> <a134ec7b-df81-435c-b9af-6ec43d5d5735@comcast.net> <20191004193244.GI5002@localhost>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <244ee0e3-d74e-575e-ca8b-a760bacd1c06@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:46:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191004193244.GI5002@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oAzWdXMPTG7Zfj4BiHJlECONoJA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 19:46:42 -0000

On 10/4/19 3:32 PM, Nico Williams wrote:

> And, frankly, though I detest x.400 and x.500 as much as anyone, the
> series naming is just fine.

Well, sure.   After all, there's no need to rename specifications that 
were never broadly adopted, and which are cited more for historical 
interest than anything else.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email