On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 07:04, Jeff Behrns via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote
> This seems like a total misuse of the RFC framework / process and more a grab > at publicity, but I'll play along...bogon. You should include the term > "bogon". Someday when I'm done keeping actual production networks alive, I > may wade into the morass of IETF & IEEE and work on trimming the fat...or > maybe just retire. It's a tough call. Not saying I agree or disagree, what is the definition of appropriate use and how does this particular draft violate in comparison to the existing corpus? Someone might want to argue RFCs are for technical implementations, but there are increasingly many RFCs with no relevance to technical implementations at all, which are significantly more soft ball than the work proposed here. -- ++ytti
