<chair hat on>
"bis" named documents are intended to replace existing RFC(s) (i.e.,
make an existing RFC obsolete (if, and) when this new draft is
published as an RFC. This -rfcXXXbis- designation is intended to give
context to what this new draft is about, but does not indicate any
changes in solution/direction/whatever this new draft is attempting to achieve.
A good example from TSVWG is when the original SCTP base spec RFC
(2960) was rewritten to update and correct any known errors (mistakes
or omissions) that draft was draft-*-tsvwg-2960bis-... when in WG
draft form. This draft reached consensus within this WG and the
community to become RFC 4960, which is a proposed standard currently.
If, and when, SCTP needs to progress towards Internet Standard (IS)
along the standards track, it (likely) will start with a filename
with "...-tsvwg-4960bis-..." in it.
Does this make sense?
If you follow that (and no one disagrees with it), do you believe
your draft qualifies as an intended rewrite of RFC 4170? It is
important what you as an author believes about this, as well as what
the WG believes about this. If consensus is reached whether (or not)
this draft should be considered a rewrite of RFC 4170, the filename
can change then (usually at the direction of the WG chairs). The
draft title does not need to change, and in fact often does not.
<chair hat on>At 02:16 AM 3/28/2012, Jose Saldana wrote:
>The other day, reading RFC Tao, y read this sentence in the
>introduction of 7.3:
>There are some informal rules for Internet-Draft naming that have
>evolved over the years. Internet-Drafts that revise existing RFCs
>often have draft names with "bis" in them, meaning "again" or
>"twice"; for example, a draft might be called
>The question is: Should we change the name of the draft (in the next
>Perhaps it is too late for that. In addition, it is an informal rule.
>Any opinion about it?