Re: Planning to split doc-rfc
nick@debian.org (Nicolás Lichtmaier) wrote on 25.02.01 in <[🔎] 20010225004815.A31844@debian.org>:
> > DRAFT STANDARDS doc-rfc-draft-std
> > EXPERIMENTAL doc-rfc-experimental
> > HISTORIC doc-rfc-historic
> > PROPOSED STANDARDS doc-rfc-proposed-std
> > STANDARDS doc-rfc-standard
> > - doc-rfc-misc
> > Comments? Better names? Should there be a dummy doc-rfc package to pull in
> > the others?
>
> The packaging should be tematic,
Are *you* going through the ~3000 RFCs and making a list which ones belong
to each theme?
(And what will you do about overlaps? There's a *lot* of that.)
It's not as if I haven't tried to come up with such a scheme for years.
> I can't think of noone who would find this
> split useful. RFCs implementation in the real world isn't related to the RFC
> status.
Only among people who don't know about that status, in my experience.
> > (I'd still like a thematic split, but I still know no way to do that that
> > doesn't imply looking through ~3000 RFCs manually, and that doesn't seem
> > reasonable.)
>
> Neither is blindly packaging all of them.
I never proposed packaging all of them, of course. The largest proposed
classes are informational and proposed standard, both at slightly over
700; all the rest are around 550. And yes, that does not add up to 3000.
There are a lot of RFCs that do not have such a status assigned - some old
ones, and also outdated ones.
> I'd rather have 20 or 30 hand
> picked interesting RFC that a bunch of unclassified ones.
>
> Doesn't...
>
> doc-rfc-web
> doc-rfc-ldap
> doc-rfc-snmp
> doc-rfc-ip (or doc-rfc-networking ? )
>
> ... sound much more useful?
Of course, but who's going to do the hand-picking?
MfG Kai
Reply to: