OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Spencer Dawkins]

Dear Margaret,

Well, now that you mention it, I believe these items would help people find
things:

- actual use of the STD maturity level, so that many questions could be
answered by "look at STD n", no matter what has happened to the underlying
RFCs and errata sheets lately,

- a severe pruning to Historical of protocols that aren't still widely used,

- possibily even a severe pruning to Historical of protocols that aren't
still being deployed (even if they are still in use),

- decent STF organization (note that STD 5 includes SIX RFCs on IP and ICMP.
Conversely, how many Telnet options are there? they're spread across SIX
STDs).

- I really like the Updated By/Obsoleted By information you get when you
SEARCH for a document at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html, but this
information could appear other places, too (in document bodies would be
nice, but I know we don't change RFCs without changing RFC numbers).

Others?

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian at hursley.ibm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track


>
> Hi Keith,
>
> At 10:36 AM 5/20/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >one thing I'd like to see us consider is to issue more applicabliity
> >statements, errata documents, and implementation notes, rather than
> >revising an entire document to accomodate minor changes.  we could do
that
> >even for Standard documents.
>
> I would agree, if our existing document set was organized to make
> it easier for people to find associated documents.  Maybe that
> is something we can change/fix?
>
> Margaret