Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:21:03 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>

    > For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in
    > staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using
    > the RFC series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF
    > over the RFC series).

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting creating a new document
series for use by the IETF, for its standards documents?  If so, I don't
recall this possibility being discussed before, although I can't believe it
hasn't been suggested at some point.

Such a change would be acceptable to me - although it might take a while to
build up the distribution system that already exists for RFCs.

	Noel

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:28:59 -0700

> hasn't been suggested at some point.

Well, there's STDs. Do you also want PSTD and DSTD numbers?

> build up the distribution system that already exists for RFCs.

Using STD/DSTD/PSTD would just be additional numbers.

Joe