*> I did note an issue which I think could use more clarification in this document, *> which is whether the Independent Submission track is solely for *> publication of Informational/Experimental RFCs, or whether it can be also *> used to publish BCPs or Standards track RFCs. I would like to see an *> explicit statement in the document saying that the process only applies to *> Informational/Experimental documents, and cannot be used for other *> purposes.
Bernard, Certainly everyone understands this, and I thought that 2026 already stated it. Whatever. It is not clear that this is the correct place for defining legal mappings of document streams onto RFC categories, but as a pragmatic matter, fine, let's make sure draft-klensin is explicit about what categories are allowed. *> *> RFC 3932 Section 1 says that it solely concerns "RFC Editor *> documents to Experimental/ Informational" status. This implies that *> the process defined in that document can't be used for Standard track *> documents, but it doesn't preclude other documents from specifying such a *> process. Given this, I would like to make sure that Wow!! You have missed a calling as a lawyer!! Or ARE you a lawyer? That implication seems far-fetched to me, and clearly was not intended. Bob Braden _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
