RE: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic

[Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]>]

On Wed July 13 2005 01:43, [e-mail] wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> There's 'accurate' and there's 'meaningful' - I'll give you the point that
> it may be accurate, but I am not ready to buy that its meaningful.

John, what specifically do you believe is a problem that is within the
jurisdiction of the RFC-Editor (N.B. Status is set by a Standards
Action, which is IESG's job, and has categories specified in BCP 9)?

> There could be some tweaking, IMO.  I don't believe we've specified what
> format the RFC Index must take, Bob Braden seemed to say that the current
> form is historical in nature.

Yes, and the index is useful for many things, such as for generating
references to RFCs for Internet-Drafts.  Changing the format may impede
such things, and there may be any number of tools which use the
rfc-index format (which already has a number of distinctly different
sections, e.g. look at the publication date formats).  Regarding
references, although the RFC-Editor has an "rfc-ref" file (
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-ref.txt ), were I to wish to refer to
RFC 4130 (the most recent one in rfc-ref), I would generate a
reference from the rfc-index rather than use the data in rfc-ref,
i.e. it would look like:

   [R1.RFC4130] Moberg, D. and R. Drummond, "MIME-Based Secure
                Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interchange Using HTTP,
                Applicability Statement 2 (AS2)", RFC 4130, July 2005.

That is generated from the rfc-index by an awk script (
http://users.erols.com/blilly/formatting/rfcref )
and does not resemble in the least the line from rfc-ref:

RFC4130 |           | Gurwitz, "", RFC 4130, September 1982.

Before making further changes to the format, the benefit of such a
change should be carefully weighed against the costs, which includes
rewriting such tools as various IETFers may have for doing things
like generating references, analyzing dependencies, etc.  By the way,
the script that generates references also analyzes dependencies and
will cause a diagnostic to be issued if reference is made to an RFC
which has been updated or obsoleted, e.g. reference to STD 11:

WARNING: -:2: STD 11 -> RFC 822 is obsoleted by RFC 2822
WARNING: -:2: STD 11 -> RFC 822 is updated by RFC 1123, RFC 1138, RFC 1148, RFC 1327, RFC 2156

   [R1.STD11] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
              text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

> > 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.
> 
> If we are that stuck as an organization, I guess we are well into declining
> relevance.  I think its important that we, as organization, take care of the
> technology and documents we produce - otherwise, what is the point?  
> If we cannot meaningfully convey the status of our documents, why bother?

We (are supposed to) do things by consensus; the current procedure
does not provide for separate designations for the technology and
for the specification, so short of somebody writing an Internet-Draft
proposing some specifics and running it up the flagpole via a request
to publish and the ensuing Last Call, how do you propose to change
that (consistent with established IETF principles)?
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html