Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't see any restriction introduced by the factual "historically."
Maybe it's a bad case of DEnglish on my side, but I'd still prefer to remove the "historically" from the draft before publication. > I would be against creating explicit "document streams" for the > RFC Editor +1 > or IANA That could be tricky, but getting a proper RFC number for their "ICP" documents, US ASCII and all, I'd like that. The status could be also "informational", like RFCs published by the IAB, IESG, or IASA. > RFC 2223 is procedural material that should be easy to update - ideal > for an ION. It will be soon ten years old, it doesn't change often enough for an ION. Or rather that's my concept of ION: Needing modifications often, like your roadmap text. Maybe your concept of ION is more like "doesn't need the complete last call + approval + RFC editor bureaucracy", that would be somewhat different. > RFC 1591 is a wonderful document, but unfortunately the world went > mad the year after it was published, and I don't ever expect to see > a 1591bis. What happened 1995 ? RFC 1591 is clearly better than RFC 1032, but in that case the official status is critical to cover the relevant parts of RFC 954. Frank _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
