OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Wijnen, Bert (Bert)]

Maybe this is just me... but I have difficulty keeping up with
this mailing list... (In fact I am some 500 postings behind).

So when I see postings like below... I wonder....
Is this really the task of this WG?
It seems a problem, but are those core problems or 
root causes of problems that we need to get on the table?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer at mcsr-labs.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2003 17:18
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track
> 
> 
> 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