Subject: Re: Origin of RFCs [Re: Terms used in rules-update-07]

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:49:06 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Pardon my jumping in again - but since the IETF sort of has some subliminal idea that people will want to keep up to snuff (up to date) with the latest and greatest release of an RFC's description, but since there are also no real test plans or release confirmation/interoperability models from release to release, it makes it really really important to be able to track a specific protocol instance to a RFC instance, and without the versioning number ... well - we all have experience with code-managment without proper Collaboration tools.

T.

-----Original Message-----
>From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Jul 7, 2006 5:22 AM
>To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Origin of RFCs [Re: Terms used in rules-update-07]
>
>Brian - the documents also need a revision code on them as well - this is
>critical since RFC's are published with "Any and All" licenses against them,
>so any use of an earlier version of a protocol or BCP needs to be able to
>tie that use to a specific version of a document to uniquely identify the
>version of the documents content's used in any effort.
>
>Todd
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1:21 AM
>Subject: Origin of RFCs [Re: Terms used in rules-update-07]
>
>
>>
>> > Yes, I see now.  It would be good if the documents themselves made it
>> > clear what status they have, and thus consequently which license
>> > applies to it.
>>
>> In fact the "Status of this memo" section does define the status
>> of an RFC, but not its origin, which is the missing information
>> for non-standards-track, non-BCP documents.
>>
>> I suggest this is a problem which this WG cannot fix - but this
>> WG could certainly send a strong recommendation to the IAB that
>> the RFC Editor should be requested to ensure that every future RFC
>> clearly indicates its origin, and that as far as possible, the index
>> should clearly indicate the origin of all RFCs.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

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