If we create confusion by labelling everything RFC we are going to feel the ill
effects caused by that confusion.
I know we keep comming across the problem that the RFC numbers are welded into
the infrastructure and nobody seems to want STDs. But we still have a problem.
Perhaps a variant of
Did you consider that the IANA allocation policy for the two IANA values
required by the document is "IETF Consensus"?
The standards track status of the document doesn't matter then. What
matters is if the registration meets "IETF Consensus", and the IESG
decides this.
I think the policies aroun
> "RJ" == RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RJ> I support the idea that virtually any document ought to be
RJ> able to be published as an Informational RFC or Experimental
RJ> RFC. Technology that is useful will be adopted if
RJ> economically sensible, whether in an RFC
> - Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track.
One of the commenters mentioned that even Informational RFCs are seen,
by the uninitiated, as having the force of a standard.
> - Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track.
>So there is no "endorsement" by IETF in publishi
RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Some important things that the FSF folks seem NOT to understand,
> and frankly seem to aggressively NOT want to understand, are:
>
> - Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track.
>
> - Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track.
> So there is no "endo
