Brian E Carpenter wrote: > mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is > always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date).
IMO they should resume to publish ??00 RFCs as STD 1 at least when there is a new or updated STD. If they really hate it there should be a "last" STD 1 deprecating itself. Some tools (not only offline collections with an old snapshot) and users still expect that STD 1 exists, whatever 2026bis says, a last STD 1 also needs to be clear. >> Removing the right to initiate a "standards actions" from the >> community is a bad idea. That's not "aligning with reality", I >> tested it, it works like a charme, the RFC in question meanwhile >> got its number. > I didn't intend that at all. Where do you find that? 3.14 == old == | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working | Group, a recommendation by an individual to the IESG. 3.14 == new == | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working | Group, an agreement by an Area Director to recommend a | specification to the IESG. You move the "action" right from the community to IESG members. I also hated it when you (or Jari ?) did in essence the same with the right to create a "Pubreq" for non-WG documents. > don't you think there should be an appeal path if an IANA- > considerations expert reviewer makes a dubious decision? Yes, my two examples were for both sides, there's no WG Chair who could "protect" expert reviewers... > Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG, so wouldn't be > covered by my language. ...good, I missed "by the IESG" after "appointed to IETF roles". Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
