Re: STD-2 is obsolete
"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > > >> I was not aware that there was ever a proposed STD-1 I-D and/ > >> or last call. > > > STDs are labels of existing standard RFCs which go through > > the usual procedure. > > But, neither I was aware that there was ever an I-D and/or a > last call for RFC-2600 or RFC-2700. RFC2026 indicates that there are some RFCs, notably STD1, which are reissued periodically, and it isn't clear that this goes back through the draft procedure. Assigned numbers, by its own description, is a snapshot of an ongoing process. The fact that it was accepted as an RFC implies that it ncan and should be updated periodicaly. Finally, the document itself declares that the current values for the assigned numbers are NOT in the document, but rather in a file at the following address: > The files in this directory document the currently assigned values for > several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments -- > >> Anyway, is it possible to declare (by whoever) > >> the http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm as STD-2? Or, perhaps a > >> mini RFC as STD-2 that informs where to get the current > >> numbers? The 'mini RFC' is already in STD-2, FWIW. > > As to where to get them, that's already in rfc-index.txt > > (which is in the same directory as the RFCs): > > Unfortunately, it is not so obvious (especially for the one who > has no idea about the RFC-Editor mechanism) that rfc-index.txt > exists. Search engines are your friend in this case. A quick search on Google points, first shot, to the RFC-Editor, which indicates the index: http://www.rfc-editor.org/ The IETF's RFC pages also contain a link to that RFC: http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html Joe
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
Joe Touch wrote: >> I was not aware that there was ever a proposed STD-1 I-D and/ >> or last call. > STDs are labels of existing standard RFCs which go through > the usual procedure. But, neither I was aware that there was ever an I-D and/or a last call for RFC-2600 or RFC-2700. >> Anyway, is it possible to declare (by whoever) >> the http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm as STD-2? Or, perhaps a >> mini RFC as STD-2 that informs where to get the current >> numbers? > The procedure would generally be to update RFC1700, > resubmit it, and _then_ have STD-2 point to that new RFC. > (something IANA would do) I believe this is a problem. Accurate information exists, but it can not be published because it is not in a traditional RFC format :-(. > As far as I know, the recent status is supposed to be > at the top of the RFC. > As to where to get them, that's already in rfc-index.txt > (which is in the same directory as the RFCs): Unfortunately, it is not so obvious (especially for the one who has no idea about the RFC-Editor mechanism) that rfc-index.txt exists. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - Good bye hegemony - http://sapi.vlsm.org/DLL/linuxrouter
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > > >> IANA can't change the status of an STD - that's an IESG action. > >> If you think this matters, I would raise it with the latter. > > > Agreed. > > I was not aware that there was ever a proposed STD-1 I-D and/ > or last call. STDs are labels of existing standard RFCs which go through the usual procedure. From RFC1718, the Tao of the IETF: >To help clear up some confusion, there are now two special sub-series >within the RFCs: FYIs and STDs. The For Your Information RFC sub- >series was created to document overviews and topics which are >introductory. Frequently, FYIs are created by groups within the IETF >User Services Area. The STD RFC sub-series was created to identify >those RFCs which do in fact specify Internet standards. > Anyway, is it possible to declare (by whoever) > the http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm as STD-2? Or, perhaps a > mini RFC as STD-2 that informs where to get the current > numbers? The procedure would generally be to update RFC1700, resubmit it, and _then_ have STD-2 point to that new RFC. (something IANA would do) Alternately, or at least as an interim, the text in STD2 could include the URL. However, URLs are not considered "normative references", so it doesn't appear it would be appropriate to use just the URL as a persistent solution here. > I also believe that more information should be added into an > RFC: > - where to get an RFC > - where to get the recent status of an RFC As far as I know, the recent status is supposed to be at the top of the RFC. As to where to get them, that's already in rfc-index.txt (which is in the same directory as the RFCs): > Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending > an EMAIL message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. > > For example: > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: getting rfcs > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs Joe
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
Joe Touch wrote: >> IANA can't change the status of an STD - that's an IESG action. >> If you think this matters, I would raise it with the latter. > Agreed. I was not aware that there was ever a proposed STD-1 I-D and/ or last call. Anyway, is it possible to declare (by whoever) the http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm as STD-2? Or, perhaps a mini RFC as STD-2 that informs where to get the current numbers? I also believe that more information should be added into an RFC: - where to get an RFC - where to get the recent status of an RFC It is sometimes very confusing for the internet community at large, to trace back the source of accurate information. PS, these following was cited from a standard /etc/services: -- # Note that it is presently the policy of IANA to assign a single well-known # port number for both TCP and UDP; hence, most entries here have two entries # even if the protocol doesn't support UDP operations. # Updated from RFC 1700, ``Assigned Numbers'' (October 1994). Not all ports # are included, only the more common ones. [...] # From ``Assigned Numbers'': #> The Registered Ports are not controlled by the IANA and on most systems #> can be used by ordinary user processes or programs executed by ordinary #> users. #> Ports are used in the TCP [45,106] to name the ends of logical #> connections which carry long term conversations. For the purpose of #> providing services to unknown callers, a service contact port is #> defined. This list specifies the port used by the server process as its #> contact port. While the IANA can not control uses of these ports it #> does register or list uses of these ports as a convienence to the #> community. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - Good bye hegemony - http://sapi.vlsm.org/DLL/linuxrouter
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
Joe Touch wrote: ... > > Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2 > > is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by > > IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm . > > Very good question. I'll be glad to raise the issue with IANA; > at least 1700 and STD-2 should be obsoleted in their current form. afaik nothing in 1700 has been rescinded, so it isn't obsolete; it's simply updated by http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm IANA can't change the status of an STD - that's an IESG action. If you think this matters, I would raise it with the latter. Brian
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > ... > > > Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2 > > > is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by > > > IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm . > > > > Very good question. I'll be glad to raise the issue with IANA; > > at least 1700 and STD-2 should be obsoleted in their current form. > > afaik nothing in 1700 has been rescinded, so it isn't obsolete; > it's simply updated by http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm I was using the term 'obsolete' as in 'obsoleted by', as used in other standards that have been updated by subsequent RFCs. > IANA can't change the status of an STD - that's an IESG action. > If you think this matters, I would raise it with the latter. Agreed. I was expecting that IANA would initiate taking the action with the IESG, not that they would supercede it. Joe
Re: STD-2 is obsolete
"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > > > It is a paradox to begin one standard by selectively omitting > > current standards (e.g., RFC1122). > > I believe that that is called "making progress". Cited > from section 4.20 of RFC-1336: > "I think three factors contribute to the success of the >Internet: >1) public documentation of the protocols, >2) free (or cheap) software for the popular machines, and >3) vendor independence." The unstated assumption of #1 is that there are protocols, that they are designed carefully and conservatively to result in a stable specification to code to. Certainly protocols evolve and even are replaced. It's more productive to replace a standard than ignore it, though. > Thus, it is not "end-to-end-purity" or because the existence > of any organization. I asserted neither per se. > Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2 > is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by > IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm . Very good question. I'll be glad to raise the issue with IANA; at least 1700 and STD-2 should be obsoleted in their current form. Joe
STD-2 is obsolete
Joe Touch wrote: > It is a paradox to begin one standard by selectively omitting > current standards (e.g., RFC1122). I believe that that is called "making progress". Cited from section 4.20 of RFC-1336: "I think three factors contribute to the success of the Internet: 1) public documentation of the protocols, 2) free (or cheap) software for the popular machines, and 3) vendor independence." Thus, it is not "end-to-end-purity" or because the existence of any organization. Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2 is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm . regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - Good bye hegemony - http://sapi.vlsm.org/DLL/linuxrouter
