[Nut-upsuser] The IETF wants to remove chapter 8 "Implementation Status"
roger at rogerprice.org
Wed Jul 27 13:45:45 BST 2022
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Perhaps you could move the Implementation Status section to a new,
> informational RFC, and simply cite that new RFC in the base document?
Generating a whole new RFC just for a couple of paragraphs is a lot of work,
which editors try to avoid.
> Is there any intent to have the nut distribution be a reference
If you visit
you will see all the IANA registrations of Port Number/Transport Protocol for
UPSs. NUT is 3493/tcp, and has already been updated to point to the future RFC.
It is a pleasure to see NUT standing out from the crowd as a reference
implementation, but from a purely administrative point of view its a little
> ...which used to be a thing but I don't know how those winds are blowing these
"Working code and rough consensus" was the IETF creed, but this now depends on
the working group. Some (the routing WGs?) insist on multiple implementations,
others none at all. I wonder how many of the numerous YANG RFC's have working
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I have not really dug in, but if the editors say this is what they want
> as their consensus view, rather than just one of them, then moving to
> appendix seems ok. In terms of making the text available to readers
> and preserving for posterity, section vs appendix doesn't really matter.
Agreed. I will ask that subsections 8.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3 "Recommended
Minimum Support" be moved to Appendix A, new section A.4.
More information about the Nut-upsuser