draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-02.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-02.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
August 2003 August 2003
Expires January 2004 Expires January 2004
Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Standards Currently Deployed IETF Standards
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
skipping to change at line 151 skipping to change at line 151
classification for older standards. Standards are only classified as classification for older standards. Standards are only classified as
Historic when either a newer version of the protocol is deployed, Historic when either a newer version of the protocol is deployed,
it is randomly noticed that an RFC describes a long dead protocol, or it is randomly noticed that an RFC describes a long dead protocol, or
a serious flaw is discovered in a protocol. Another issue is the status a serious flaw is discovered in a protocol. Another issue is the status
of Proposed Standards. Since this is the entry level position for of Proposed Standards. Since this is the entry level position for
protocols entering the standards process, many old protocols or non- protocols entering the standards process, many old protocols or non-
implemented protocols linger in this status indefinitely. This problem implemented protocols linger in this status indefinitely. This problem
also exists for Experimental Standards. Similarly the problem exists also exists for Experimental Standards. Similarly the problem exists
for the Best Current Practices (BCP) and For You Information (FYI) for the Best Current Practices (BCP) and For You Information (FYI)
series of documents. series of documents.
It is the intention of the author to actively pursue the active
management of protocol series. There is no current responsibility in
the management structure of the IETF (WG, AD, IESG, IETF-Chair, IAB
RFC Editor, or IANA) to perform this function. All of these positions
are usually concerned with the current and future developments of
protocols in the standards process (i.e. they look at the present and
the future, but not the past).
It is likely that unless this function is formalized in some way, that
any individual effort will be of limited duration. It is therefore
proposed that this responsibility be embodied formally. Three possible
suggestion are the creation of a working group in the General Area be
created to actively and periodically review the status of RFC
classifications. A second possibility is to more formally and actively
have this duty taken up by the RFC Editor. A final possibility is the
creation of a permanent position (similar to the RFC Editor) who is
responsible for the active management of the document series.
To exemplify this point, there are 61 Full Standards, only 4 of which To exemplify this point, there are 61 Full Standards, only 4 of which
have been reclassified to Historic. There are 65 Draft Standards, 611 have been reclassified to Historic. There are 65 Draft Standards, 611
Proposed Standards, and 150 Experimental RFCs, of which only 66 Proposed Standards, and 150 Experimental RFCs, of which only 66
have been reclassified as Historic. That is a rate of less than 8%. have been reclassified as Historic. That is a rate of less than 8%.
It should be obvious that in the more that 30 years of protocol It should be obvious that in the more that 30 years of protocol
development and documentation there should be at least as many (if development and documentation there should be at least as many (if
not a majority of) protocols that have been retired compared to the ones not a majority of) protocols that have been retired compared to the ones
that are currently active. that are currently active.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/