Subject: Re: STD series of documents

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:32:18 -0400

Folks, 

This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
around a few times into an I-D.  It is in the hands of the
posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
tomorrow.  Watch for an announcement for
draft-klensin-std-repurposing-00.txt or something like that.

High points...

	* STDs become a separate document series, independent of
	the underlying RFCs.
	
	* Their content is a function of IESG protocol actions
	or the equivalent, so that they define exactly what a
	particular standard "means" and what its content is at
	some point in time.  They are also a place to put
	comments and suggestions about usability and context to
	the extent to which the IETF wishes to make such
	statements.
	
	* They get activated at "Proposed", not "Internet
	Standard".
	
	* They contain explicit change history and tracking info.

It may not be right (and will need work even if it is), but the
document may at least help focus this, and some closely related,
discussions.

I expect discussion to occur on the Newtrk list.

    john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:14:27 -0700 (PDT)

Folks,

Before any more discussion about the STD sub-series of RFCs, please
acquaint yourselves with the facts.  The relevant rules are defined in
Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, March 1992.

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:26:38 -0400

Donald,

I can't tell whether we are in agreement or not.  Would a
separate set of real documents (separate pieces of paper) that
reference RFCs but 

	* are not RFCs and 
	* have content that is not in the RFCs

meet your criteria?

best,
       john

--On Saturday, 12 June, 2004 16:37 -0400 Donald Eastlake III
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have long thought that the other document designations (STD,
> FYI, ...)  are bound to continue to be confusing minor labels
> without much mind  share as long as there documents are also
> RFCs. The only hope to get  people to REALLY switch to using
> these new disgnations in general is to  make those documents
> NOT be RFCs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ==============================================================
> ========  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> [email-masked]  155 Beaver Street
> +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)  Milford, MA 01757 USA
> [email-masked]
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
>> From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: STD series of documents
>> 
>> Folks, 
>> 
>> It may not be right (and will need work even if it is), but
>> the document may at least help focus this, and some closely
>> related, discussions.
>>