Adrian,
I think both statements are true.
I've seen operators putting almost any RFC in RFPs, (actually done
it myself) STD, DS, PS, Informational, Experimental, Historic and
April 1st. An RFC is an RFC is an RFC!
On the other hand talking to folks active in other SDOs you very
often hear the "no standards" argument.
Renaming without changing definitions should part of the job.
/Loa
Adrian Farrel wrote:
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
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.anders...@ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager l...@pi.nu
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
