[Tools-discuss] Re: March tools update

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On 3/6/26 2:35 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 11:59 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     (copying RSWG because this is a policy matter)
> 
>     --On Friday, March 6, 2026 10:30 -0600 Robert Sparks
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>      >
>      >### RFC Production Center work
>      >
>      > We are primarily focusing on the RFC Production Center
>      > modernization tasks, both on the workflow management tooling, the
>      > RFC Editor website rewrite, and editor tooling because of issues
>      > that need to be resolved before RFC10000 is published. Deployment
>      > of these components will take place just after IETF 125. The
>      > publication of RFC10000 is currently expected to occur in May.
> 
>     One tiny suggestion about this, drawing on RFC Series precedent and
>     if you are not already ahead of me:  Don't publish an RFC 10000, just
>     mark the number as "Not Issued" and move on.  If it is assigned to
>     the next document that comes up in the normal order of events, it is
>     likely to turn into bragging rights, some sort of dispute over who
>     gets the number, or an argument about precedents when it is time for
>     RFC 20000, any one of which would be inherently painful and/or
>     disruptive.   Or, if you want to use the number, look to RFC 1000 as
>     an example and make it an Editorial Stream document about the series,
>     one that constitutes a summary of actions already taken or otherwise
>     unlikely to be obsoleted. If it were thought to be interesting enough
>     to justify the effort, a discussion of what it took to fix things and
>     allow a five-digit number might be such a document.   Even then, I
>     think we'd all be better off if that were published as RFC 9999 and
>     10000 were just permanently reserved.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I tend to agree with John about this. I think there are some safe
> things you could put here ("57 years of RFCs"), but having it be a technical
> document seems unfortunate.

[JM]  The last big, round number (RFC 9000) went to QUIC. RFC numbers 
4000, 6000, and 7000 were never issued. Other big, round numbers like 
RFC 5000 were used for lists of RFCs, but that practice was retired with 
RFC 7100.

The RPC has a policy that RFC numbers can't be reserved, and we haven't 
received any serious inquiries regarding RFC 10000. There isn't a 
retrospective document in the works that I know of (i.e., the RPC hasn't 
started one). <individual hat on> I'd be okay with not issuing RFC 10000 
and just moving forward.

Best regards,
Jean

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
>         --john
> 
>     -----------------------------------------------
>     Tools-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:tools-
>     [e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/ <https://
>     mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
>