in line On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote: >> >>> On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >>> >>>> ...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3... >>>> >>> Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from >>> 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found >>> a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the >>> document that we're removing that too. >>> > > Here's what I've got as a replacement for section 1: > > RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and its predecessors call for the publication of > an RFC describing the status of IETF protocols: > > The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official > Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all > Internet protocol and service specifications. > > The "Internet Official Protocol Standards" document, now as RFC 5000 > [RFC5000], has always been listed in the Internet Standard series as > STD 1. However, the document has not been kept up to date in recent > years, and it has fallen out of use in favor of the online list > produced by the RFC Editor [STDS-TRK]. The IETF no longer sees the > need for the document to be maintained. Therefore, this document > updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026], effectively removing the above mentioned > paragraph from section 6.1.3, along with the paragraph from section > 2.1 that states: > > The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is > summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official > Protocol Standards" [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and > other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service > specification (see section 3). > > and the paragraph from section 3.3 that states: > > The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general > requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in > this section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, > more detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular > protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be > found in appropriate ASs. > > Additionally, this document obsoletes RFC 5000 [RFC5000], the current > incarnation of that document, and requests that the IESG move that > document (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status. > > Makes me go over 2 pages, but such is life. life is hard sometimes :-) the above text works for me > >>>> and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd >>>> paragraph in the same section >>>> An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall >>>> appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This >>>> shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards >>>> actions. >>>> >>>> should also be removed since that is not being done either >>>> and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that >>>> does not actually exist >>>> >>> I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? >>> >> Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always >> at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL >> the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) >> > > I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure > we need to make further reference to it. > > Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of > this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph > requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm > leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? no strong feeling either way Scott > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >
