[ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker)

[Toerless Eckert]

I think that emails to IETF mailing lists are closest to the original spirit
of "requests for comments" these days.

Maybe we could introduce a new email message header that IETF mailman would insert,
something like "RFC-ID: RFC.MSG.sender.date.serial.list" (or the like).

This would give each mail to an IETF mailing list a unique "RFC" identification,
and thereby elevating it to an RFC. While primarily meant as a honorary identifier
to remind of the original spirit of the term, this could even be useful because
those IDs could be used as references if we also come up with a URI/URL scheme for
them (worst case an IETF mailman URL). [ Not sure if there are even URLs for
standard Message-ID's on mailman. ]

Other than that, it would be lovely if we would have better recommendations
for changelogs in drafts to capture the discussion. Today this is left to
authors, and WG chairs typically don't dare to ask for more if authors don't
want to do it.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:49:39PM -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again.
> 
> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more
> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators,
> which are handled in email and meetings.
> 
> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with no
> intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de