Why is this true - I am not saying its not but its an assertion that is undocumented and unsupported. So how does this work - why would the series be less valuable and because of what - this is a key question in establishing a value propisition for the IETF's wares.
T -----Original Message----- >From: Keith Moore <[email protected]> >Sent: Aug 8, 2006 8:38 AM >To: Yaakov Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe Touch <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request > >>> Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate >>> it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to >>> occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP, >>> UDP etc. are "done evolving"). Hence, something would have to take >>> the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately. >>> >> >> What I said was that a gap in standards-track RFCs would render the >> series useless. > >I think this is basically correct. The series wouldn't immediately >become useless but would become less useful over time. The individual >documents for IP, TCP, etc. would continue to be useful until the >community felt that they had been replaced. > >> Were we to be foolish enough to allow a prolonged hiatus in the RFC >> series, there would be other SDOs more than willing to take over >> maintenance and extension of the IP suite, of course labeling the >> resulting standards "Implementation Agreements" or "Recommendations" >> instead of "RFCs". > >pretty much agree with this also. abandoning the RFC series (without an >immediate replacement from IETF) would create a vacuum that other SDOs >would be eager to fill. even with an immediate replacement there would >likely be some market confusion if we changed the name from RFC to >something else. > >> More importantly, later IETF work (even if called "RFCs") would not >> be readily viewed as a natural evolution of the original IP >> standards, and would require us to actively market them. > >concur. > >Keith > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >[email protected] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
