Subject: Re: References to RFCs-to-be in IANA registries

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:50:31 -0500

>  Date: 2005-03-08 23:17
>  From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>

> I read the post you referenced above, as well as the followups from Ned and
> Scott, and I have nothing to add to their explanations. I think that they
> have accurately described the situation at hand.
[...]
> As has been explained to you, those references are simply placeholders that 
> will be replaced with the real RFC reference when it's published by the RFC 
> Editor. That said, the IANA staff is always interested in improving its 
> service to the community, so if you have suggestions as to how those types 
> of references can be improved, we are happy to listen to them. Such 
> suggestions could be discussed here if the community agrees it's 
> appropriate, or sent to [email-masked] at any time.

The issue is not the appearance of registrations prior to final
publication of an RFC, but rather the usability of the references
in the registry.  I have heard that there is a plan to use the
IETF Secretariat's I-D Database lookup feature to improve those
references; that sounds like an improvement.

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

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:48:19 -0600

[ Note, I'm replying from my personal address because that's how I'm
subscribed to the list for hysterical raisins. ]

Bruce Lilly wrote:

| The issue is not the appearance of registrations prior to final
| publication of an RFC, but rather the usability of the references in the
| registry.

Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for raising this issue.

| I have heard that there is a plan to use the IETF Secretariat's I-D
| Database lookup feature to improve those references; that sounds like an
| improvement.

I'm not sure what solution you're referring to here. What I can say (as I
announced last night at the plenary) is that after discussing this issue
with Michelle what we decided was that she would change the link in the
anchor tag to point to the current version of the draft until the RFC editor
publishes the new RFC. We're hoping that this will increase the utility of
the link to those interested in learning about the new document, and reduce
any lingering ambiguity over the meaning of the RFC-<draft name> reference.

We are of course still open to suggestions on how IANA can improve its
service to the community, feel free to send them along.

Regards,

Doug (aka [email-masked])

- --
~    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough