Pete,
>Stephen Kent wrote:
> >
> > I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they
> > make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational
> > RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since
> > RFcs are archival....
>
>And I'll make a pithy counter-observation: if they're worth being
>referenced in an RFC (as "works-in-progress") then they're worth saving.
We agree; an RFC ought not cite an I-D.
>IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a
>"work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background
>information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months
>of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful.
Right.
>In any case, as Scott Bradner informed us, they will soon be available,
>so this is officially a moot point.
>
> >...But, I don't want
> > to see them cited in some product marketing data sheet, further
> > confusing folks who already are confused by the fact that all
> > standards are RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards ...
>
>Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their
>latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been
>submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an
>Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years.
People do bad things. We can't prevent that, but we can avoid helping
them by giving the imprimatur of the IETF to such behavior.
Steve
