--On Wednesday, 01 March, 2006 10:24 -0800 Paul Hoffman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:34 AM -0500 3/1/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So I read the
>> description of this issue/ requirement, saw what "permanent
>> IDs", especially early ones, were for, and got "these are
>> identifiers of the _standards_, not identifiers of the
>> documents".
>
> Another way to say this is that we are required to have a
> naming system for documents, and are required to have a naming
> system for standards. Documents that are not standards will
> have a name only in the first, while documents that are
> standards will have a name in both.
That description makes me vaguely uncomfortable for some reason,
but I don't find anything in it with which I disagree.
> From the Techspec perspective, there is not a requirement for
> how the naming system for standards is organized, nor when the
> names in the naming system for standards are allocated.
Agreed. That is why I suggested in an earlier note that this
was a Newtrk issue.
> IESGers: do the external bodies who want permanent identifiers
> need all of the identifiers that will be associated with the
> document (the document naming system *and* the standards
> naming system), or just a document identifier?
Having been in the liaison loop to one or two of them, here is
where I think we get hung up. What we have effectively told
them is that there is no standards-identifier until very late in
the process (years or never) and, consequently, if they need
something to reference for standards they have under
development, it is the document identifier. In the current
system, that would be the case even if 2026 were being followed
scrupulously and every Proposed Standard that we were not going
to discard was published at Internet Standard within 10 to 11
months. The result is that they are asking for document
identifiers. I suggest that is profoundly broken and that the
solution is not earlier assignment, or other juggling, of
document identifiers.
john
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
