Hi,
From the perspective of the world outside the IETF, this is already the
case. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC...
I don't think this is a truth universally acknowledged.
I have heard the IETF disparaged a number of times on account of "hardly
having any standards". For example, a full Standard is equated by some
people with an ITU-T Recommendation with the implication that a DS and PS
are significantly inferior to a Recommendation.
Whatever we might think of the value of this statement and the motives of
the people who make it, it is clear that the names of the different levels
of RFC are perceived outside the IETF.
Over dinner this evening we wondered whether something as simple as looking
again at the names of the stages in the three phase RFC process might serve
to address both the perceptions and the motivations for progression.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
