[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I

[evnikita2 at gmail.com (Mykyta Yevstifeyev)]

Hello all,

2 Drafts I have mentioned above have been remade so that they do NOT 
change the RFCs.

The links:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-pre-ietf-rfc-classifying-p1/?include_text=1

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-pre-ietf-rfc-classifying-p2/?include_text=1

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

29.11.2010 16:51, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 28.11.2010 13:32, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 28.11.2010 12:18, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> RFCs are immutable. We can ask the RFC Editor to update the RFC
>>>> database, but the actual text in the RFCs is not going to change.
>>> It is considered. But are there any way to mark the RFC with the
>>
>> What do you mean by "it is considered"?
> It means that I know it. However I don't find any other way to mark 
> RFC xxxx as <foo>, for instance.
>>
>>> corresponding
>>> 'ST. of th. Memo' section without changing it? And what would you 
>>> say about
>>
>> I don't think so. The information on the RFC reflects the situation 
>> at time of publication, not the current one. For that, there's the 
>> RFC database.
> But RFC 2026 has imperative rule: all RFCs are to be assigned as St. 
> Tr. . . .
>>
>>> RFC 60 with its 'modern' 'St. of th. Memo' section while other RFCs of
>>> that period
>>> do NOT contain ANY 'St. of th. Memo' section? Isn't it modifying the 
>>> RFC?
>>> A link: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc60.txt
>>
>> It might; if it does, it's a bug that happened when the original RFC 
>> was transformed into machine-readable form.
> According to the general statement, RFCs are not to be changed. But 
> original RFC did not contain
> the section and, IMO, we have every right to ask the RFC Editor to 
> make a correction.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
> Another note:
>
> 28.11.2010 18:22, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> What is your motivation for this work? Is there an actual need for 
>> knowing the status of any of these RFCs? Is it just a desire for 
>> tidiness?
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>> --VPN Consortium
>>
> It is alignment with RFC 2026, as I have mentioned.
>
> However I think we can just ask RFC Ed. to mark some of RFCs as <...> 
> without changing its entity.
>
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev