IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Observations on issues

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 17 April 2020 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B36F3A1560 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LJMwAbbL3dOD for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 297493A1559 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p548DCD70.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.205.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 493JVc1n33z1006; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 03:32:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <94d40f8b-782b-2e5b-acf5-bf75ee510253@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 03:32:23 +0200
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 608779943.817227-eef93dca3abe3fe7013c1e9a80455530
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A34401DE-C3FD-433B-ACF6-758E0960F0A8@tzi.org>
References: <21C3BA6B-25E3-4D1D-80F4-A2A459479237@tzi.org> <20200416023812.53C3517E6D06@ary.qy> <02f201d613d7$b806fb50$2814f1f0$@olddog.co.uk> <94d40f8b-782b-2e5b-acf5-bf75ee510253@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/JkIGCUWPF3xli9EUVK7ht0jvo8o>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Observations on issues
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:33:35 -0000

On 2020-04-16, at 20:24, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> RFC 5411 did exactly this, but it's bound by the very issues that have come up in this thread about how we deal with revising the content of RFCs.

Yes, we have had a few roadmap documents (RFC 4614/7414 comes to mind, or RFC 6071).
The TCP roadmap is the only example I can find where such a roadmap was actually published again as revised RFC.
Because of the immense effort needed to generate a consensus RFC with this information, some roadmaps never were pushed to RFC (e.g., draft-bormann-6lo-6lowpan-roadmap-00.txt, draft-bormann-core-roadmap-05.txt); others were just published as articles (the ultimate fate of the latter roadmap was https://DOI.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.29).

We never developed roadmapping into an element of our culture, but we could.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email