Closed elear closed 3 years ago
As with RFC 2028 https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/26 it seems to me that the RFC Editor Model Version 3 does not need to specify that it formally updates RFC 2026, even if RFC 2026 could use attention for outdated text regarding matters related to RFC editing and publication.
Issue is whether we throw an Updates: header on 2026 as a marker for things that need doing in a real 2026 update.
Also should be consistent with 2850, 8730, others.
Do we want a half page of text like draft-carpenter-... Brian Rosen will write 1/2 page. We think it's not blocking, but it should get done soon.
This has been submitted.
From John:
BCP 9/ RFC 2026
Summary: RFC 2026 Section 2.1 describes the RFC Series. It is one of the places were "archival" appears (i.e., if we intend to change that, further work will be required). If we are doing a cleanup, the sentence explaining how to obtain RFCs is probably in need of updating, probably to point to an RFC Editor-maintained document. The sentence "RFC publication is the direct responsibility of the RFC Editor, under the general direction of the IAB." will almost certainly require modification depending on what we decide to do. A number of references, including those to what is now the style guide, the assertion that the ASCII form is definitive for standards-track documents, and the pointers to documents we are no longer maintaining ("Internet Official Protocol Standards" was dealt with in RFC 7100), are probably in need of explicit updating.
Action required: If things continue on their current path, remove or update the comment about general direction by the IAB. As with 2028 above and several other documents described below, some general cleaning-up should be performed by someone. See the "Job Description" comments at the end.