Or how about reserving "RFC 3399" for use as an example RFC number...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Eric Gray <eric.g...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should reserve RFC 3399 for an April 1st RFC?
>
> --
> E
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of RFC Series Editor
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:51 PM
> To: IETF Announcement List
> Cc: r...@iab.org
> Subject: The RFC xx99 Series
>
> Greetings,
>
> The RFC Editor is proposing to retire the practice of publishing RFCs xx99, 
> the Request for Comments Summary for RFC Numbers xx00-xx99.  In December 
> 1991, RFC 1099 was the first "Request for Comments Summary"
> RFC published.  It provides a list of document titles, authors, date of 
> publication, and abstracts for each of the RFCs published in the range 1000 - 
> 1099.  Since that time, through the time that RFC 3299 was published, a new 
> summary RFC was published every 100 RFCs, and RFC numbers ending with 99 were 
> reserved for these summary documents.  RFC
> 3399 was never published (for various reasons), though RFCs 3499 and
> 3599 were.  RFC 3599 was the last of these summary documents to be published 
> in December 2003.
>
> These snapshots are no longer needed because up-to-date data is available 
> online.  RFC abstracts are available using the RFC search engine 
> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php) and they are included in 
> rfc-index.xml.  RFCs xx99 summaries were never requested by the Internet 
> Community and are not currently filling a need; therefore, the RFC Editor is 
> retiring the publication of the RFC summary documents.
> RFC numbers typically reserved for these documents (i.e., numbers ending with 
> 99) may be assigned to future RFCs.
>
> If there are any concerns about this course of action, please comment by 
> October 18, 2013, on the rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list.
>
> Thank you,
> Heather Flanagan, RSE

Reply via email to