On 8/20/13 4:21 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions.
What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were
they ever formally retired?
That's not an IETF matter. There's no STD on this. There's nothing
(AFAICT) in a BCP abo
On 8/20/2013 3:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
>> At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
>>> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol
>>> Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential
>>> approval as an IAB stream RFC.
>>
>> My guess
On 8/20/13 3:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database
and emitting the result as an RFC?
I'm sure that such a tool could be created. To date, I believe the
docum
Hi Pete,
At 12:01 20-08-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points.
Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing
to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, "We are no
longer asking for the 'Official Protocol S
--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
> On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
>> At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
>>> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official
>>> Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior
>>> to potential approval as an IAB
I am having trouble understanding this discussion.
If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and
emitting the result as an RFC?
On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol
Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential
approval as an IAB stream RFC.
My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026
I think that if we worried about every minor deviation from RFC 2026,
we would be here for a long time and wasting most of it.
I have no particular objection to publishing the draft.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
(who tried and failed - see draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique,
draft-carpenter-rfc2026
--On Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:06 -0700 SM
wrote:
> At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official
> Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to
> potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
>
> The document is available for ins
SM:
> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards:
> Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream
> RFC.
>
> The document is available for inspection here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/
>
> From S
At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol
Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential
approval as an IAB stream RFC.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx
This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards:
Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream
RFC.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/
The Call for Review will la
12 matches
Mail list logo
