Re: cutting the tie with rfc2223bis

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:36 AM
> Subject: cutting the tie with rfc2223bis
...
> Rather than pushing for a "final" version that is not likely to be
> quite right owing to the time pressures, I think it might be better
> to concentrate on releasing the changes that _have_ to be made to
> bring the MIB review guidelines into compliance with current
> policies.  We can then get some "running code" experience while we
> are hashing out the rest of the changes.
...

Agreed.  I like consistency, but not at the expense of getting
the "meat" published for wider use.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could finesse things the way one can
in ISO/ITU?  The incantation "At the time of publication, the
editions indicated were valid.  All standards are subject to revision,
and parties ... are encouraged to investigate the possibility of
applying the most recent editions of the standards listed below"
made things a lot simpler.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to put in a paragraph
up front that said "when this memo was developed,
a successor to RFC 2223 was under preparation, and
significant changes to the IPR-related boilerplate were
being discussed.  Reviewers must take these changes
into account when applying these guidelines to documents
intended for IETF use."

Randy