Subject: Re: Allocating RFC numbers at time of approval

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:39:47 -0700

Steve,

> They don't exist....  (Also note the date on RFC 1108, compared to 1107 
> or 1109.)

OK, but as I said, there are not so many gaps, or fizzles,
versus the high frequency of delay before citability.

About dates:  the RFC Editor puts out the RFCs in order of
their own, mostly it seems based on work completion, but
sometimes saving numbers (this is based on observation).

Our users want to cite them quickly.  I don't think they
have a huge concern if the unrelated document with a number 
before or after has a date out of order. 

Indeed now the publication numbers would be in IETF approval
order.  That may be pretty appropriate, come to think of
it.  Perhaps the publications should include that date in
them at the end, for that matter.

Allison

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:30:28 +0900

>sometimes saving numbers (this is based on observation).

Sometimes numbers are choosen to be easy to remember. As
an example, RFC 3066 obsoleted RFC 1766. Everybody's assumption
is that having the same two final digits is more than a coincidence.
And I hope that the successor currently in the works is
also going to have the same last two digits.

Regards,    Martin.