On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive >> removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes >> sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do >> >> but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says: >> The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an "Internet Official >> Protocol Standards" RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet >> protocol and service specifications. >> >> is a process requirement - >> this requirement is the specific text that should be removed >> and is worth spinning a RFC to do >> > > Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from > 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found > a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the > document that we're removing that too. > >> and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd >> paragraph in the same section >> An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall >> appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This >> shall constitute the "publication of record" for Internet standards >> actions. >> >> should also be removed since that is not being done either >> and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that >> does not actually exist > > I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything?
Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) Brian
