[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?
Michel S. Gauthier
mg at telepresse.com
Sun Jun 15 14:12:28 UTC 2014
At 12:33 15/06/2014, FSP4NET wrote:
>The RFC model has become an interesting format, but the RFC Editor
>is hampered by the IETF Trust rights: this means that non-IETF RFCs
>are dispersed in several places and have a lose nomenclature.
>(FSP4NET considers an IRFC [interesting, independent, innovative,
>i-etc) index and wiki to help in that area, if you want to help?).
I suggest to call them in such a way that RFC 1234 is indexed as
IRFC.1234.01 with 01 being a "top level index" for the IETF RFC
Editor. And other numbering or naming system with 02, 03, etc. TLIs.
A system everyone can understand.
This way systems like MediaWiki should default IRFC 1234.01 to the
RFC Editor site, while they should stay neutral to entries like
- WIKIRFC could get the 00 TLI as another good mnemonic. Its IRFCs
would document the system?
- IRFC 0.nn in each TLI could be the list of IRFC documented in that
TLI after removing the deprecated and historic ones.
IRFC 1234.01 could be read as "Indexed RFC 1234 01" in order to avoid
confusion. In the HomeRoot an IRFC TLD could be listed permitting to
access the IRFC 1234.01 as http://1234.01.irfc".
My two cents.
M S G
More information about the discuss