[Tools-discuss] Re: [Rswg] Re: Re: March tools update

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thank you for your comments on what to do with RFC 10000. The RPC will 
not issue the number.

There isn't a need to publish RFC 10000 as a test document because we 
have a dedicated testing environment for the new queue management system 
and website. And RFC 10000 couldn't be issued as an April 1 RFC because 
the new infrastructure won't yet be in place to support it.

For those who expressed interest in retrospectives, the sixtieth 
anniversary of the Series is coming up in 2029, and the RPC will start 
working on "Sixty Years of RFCs" (RFC number TBD), which will follow "30 
Years of RFCs" [RFC2555], "40 Years of RFCs" [RFC5540], and "Fifty Years 
of RFCs" [8700].

Best regards,
Jean

On 3/13/26 2:58 AM, IETF Executive Director wrote:
> John
> 
> I agree with your analysis that the RPC can choose to skip the number as 
> that is consistent with long historical practice, and they do not need 
> to give a reason for doing so, but anything else would be a policy matter.
> 
> Jay
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 3:45 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     (Address for RSWG corrected -- those following this on that list are
>     encouraged to check out the archive for [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> -- my
>     apologies for initially getting it wrong)
> 
>     --On Thursday, March 12, 2026 23:50 -0700 Wes Hardaker
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>      >> I don't think that it is a "dummy" RFC, I think that it is more
>      >> that 10000 is "special" from a human / vanity viewpoint, and so
>      >> removing it from the lottery prize pack would be nice.
>      >>
>      >
>      > How about something like this, that is helpful, timely, somewhat
>      > humorous, educational, and a bunch of other adjectives:
>      >
>      > https://github.com/hardaker/draft-hardaker-ietf-protocol-field-
>     size <https://github.com/hardaker/draft-hardaker-ietf-protocol-
>     field-size>
>      > s/blob/main/draft-hardaker-ietf-protocol-field-sizes.txt
>      >
>      > [obviously incomplete]
> 
>     Wes (and Warren),
> 
>     I think we could diddle around with this enough to make it
>     acceptable, just as I think we would fuss with Warren's idea enough
>     to make it non-ridiculous.   I think anything obviously ridiculous
>     would ultimately reflect badly on the series (especially if not in
>     April 1 form), at least without an introduction that would require
>     some effort to write and get right.  The problem with either idea
>     --or my silly variation on Warren's-- is that, for publication in the
>     IETF Stream, we'd have to fuss enough to get community consensus that
>     it is ok to publish (or at least enough consensus to get it signed
>     off).  Probably not as much work as the type of actual historical
>     review and perspective as Brian and I have been discussing, but
>     enough to have real costs.   Even publication in any of the other
>     streams would require some sort of review and discussion and then
>     work by the RPC to publish, get metadata right, etc.   Jean's
>     suggestion of just skipping the number is the only option I can think
>     of that does not require RPC work, work that has to be prioritized
>     and that pushes some publication of some other document back, however
>     slightly, and therefore would have real costs.  And, while the energy
>     that has gone into this discussion --both of skipping the number and
>     of finding an alternative to doing that while recognizing that the
>     number is problematic-- cannot be recovered, it has consumed far more
>     time and energy already than I anticipated when I first suggested
>     recording the number as "Not Issued".
> 
>     If "Not Issued" were a new concept, I would have expected this sort
>     of discussion, but there is years of precedent for it, including its
>     appearance in the header of the text-form rfc-index.   And, fwiw, the
>     comments surrounding my suggestion and Jean's, plus those around
>     publishing a substantive historical document, plus those descending
>     from Warren's suggestion, suggests strongly to me that (a) any action
>     other than an RPC decision to skip the number would now be now be a
>     policy question (including, given Jean's comment, just reserving the
>     number for a particular spec) even if it were not one when I posted
>     my note, and hence (b) that there is almost no hope of getting
>     consensus to just publish an ordinary technical spec in sequence with
>     that number as Marc suggested.
> 
>     Any chance we can just accept Jean's idea and comment and move on?
> 
>         john
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     rswg mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Tools-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/