On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:40:27AM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
I know, I should really be having this rant in the RFC evolution WG, or with the RFC editor. It just came up here, and I want BCOP to make different mistakes on useful documents.
Even if you suppose that the RFC series is arranged ideally, or for that matter if you assume that, given established practice, fixing the RFC series is impossible, that _still_ doesn't make the RFC series a good model. In fact, of course, the RFC series actually has an overlay on it that is intended to be much more like BCOP, which is the BCP series. The thing about the BCP series is that a BCP's number doesn't change even if the document(s) making it up do. That's why (say) BCP 9 is the Internet standards process regardless of whether that's RFC 1602 or 2026-and-updates or whatever. I think that sort of thing is useful, because people can learn the right shorthand for "whatever one is doing now on topic X" and just refer people to that. I don't care if it's "BCOP 32006.1234" or "BCOP on foobar of whazit", but a consistent reference people can go to for the current version is the important feature. I also think that trying to pack more bits of information into the numbering system is a mistake. But then, I would. I think you look those sorts of things up (in the DNS, of course ;-) ) A -- Andrew Sullivan Dyn asullivan@dyn.com