Subject: RE: [newtrk] RE: comments on "What Standards"

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:50:36 +0100

John,

> Well, we could talk about how this is done, one idea that has 
> been bubbling in the back of my mind would be that new RFCs
> should specify their relationship to existing RFCs.  Do the
> update, modify, obsolete entire or parts of existing RFCs?
> Could the list be updated 'automatically' once an RFC 
> is issued? Already the RFC Editor maintains an errata list,
> this could be thought of as a related activity.

In what way would that differ from what is already done by
the RFC editor? As an example, if you use the RFC editor
search to find RFC 791, the search results will indicate that
the RFC has STANDARD status, obsoletes RFC 760, and has been
updated by RFC 1349. At the moment I do not remember where 
these status values are defined, but I know they are. "Updates"
means updates parts of, while "Replaces" means updates entire,
etc.

Rgds,
/L-E

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:24:03 +0900

Hi, Lars-Erik,

One major difference is that the mechanism you refer to is only used
for full Internet Standards, while John is referring describing a
mechanism that would refer to Proposed and Draft Standards, too.

I think John would like to see more flexibility, too - I know I would.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: [newtrk] RE: comments on "What Standards"

> This communication is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in
error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and
delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.
>
> E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption,
interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we
only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for
any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or
any consequences thereof.
> newtrk
resources:_____________________________________________________
> mhonarc archive:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:01:46 +0200 (EET)

> mechanism that would refer to Proposed and Draft Standards, too.

I think this is incorrect: Updates/Obsoletes are available for every 
specification -- so it is possible to create some "dependency" trees 
automatically based on that information.  Whether that's useful or not 
is another issue.  That is, an important specification on "label" can 
appear without having to Update or Obsolete any RFC under a "label".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:28:13 +0900

Hi, Pekka,

My apologies for not being clearer.

I know from previous discussions that John's issue is also about
"lumping" specifications together - using the 791 example, 791 is part
of STD 5, which also includes 792, 922, 950, and 1112. You are correct
that updates/obsoletes is available for individual RFCs, but this type
of "lumping" is not.

You are also correct that additions to/removals from an STD are not
tracked in an obvious way, and this does happen. It doesn't happen
often, but we don't have very many STDs to add to/remove from.

Of course, "lumping" wasn't part of John's original post, so I was
replying based on hallway conversations, not on the actual quoted
message - sorry, and hope this is clearer.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [newtrk] RE: comments on "What Standards"

.