Subject: Alternative to RFC (Was: Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication)

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 10:57:17 +1000

At 09:59 PM 11/6/98 +0100, Claus André Färber wrote:
>Maybe it's better to introduce a new document series that does not hold  
>full standards (i.e. STD), but Standard Track Documents.

I don't think what's needed here is a series. A series is a mindbogglingly
poor way to manage these things. It would be better to use a more
structured, classified system with several dimensions.

In one dimension, we would have the protocol layer, the general application
area, and a more specific application area, for example:

        Layer:          Application
        General Area:   Mail
        Specific Area:  Transport

Then another dimension might be "Producer"

        Producing Organisation: IETF
        Producting Department:  ESMTP Working Group

Another dimension might be "Standardisation Status"
        
        Standards Body:         IESG
        Standardised Status:    Standard

Completion date would be another dimension.

Using this system, anybody could find out everything they need to do to
implement Internet mail standards by querying the documents database for the
intersection of "Application,Mail", and "IESG,Standard".

While a search of the RFC series might be considered one way of doing this
now, it is an extremely poor way. It's too easy to miss things that are
important and you keep having to sort through junk that isn't.

Storing things this way would remove the barrier to publication while making
things available entirely within the one data space.
______________________________________________________________________________
[email-masked]				         Troy Rollo, Sydney, Australia
  Humility: A trait very much valued by those who have nothing to brag about