Having been through the process of authoring 2 RFC’s, perhaps I can shed some light on the process for you.
All proposed standards started life as draft RFC’s (this was before the days of IDEA’s but after the days of IEN’s). If it were validated by the working group and passed up to the IAB and they concurred (they usually deferred to the WG except on editorial matters), then the proposed draft was issued officially as an RFC and given a number. Later, after it accepted wide enough adoption in the Internet community, an existing RFC might be promoted to “standard” from “experimental”, etc. Occasionally, if a WG (working group) did enough reference implementations and proved them at one or more interoperability meetings (the so-called “bake-offs”), then the WG could petition for immediate labeling as a “standard” when the RFC was approved by the IAB. It’s even possible for a standard (like RFC-1035) to have both “standard” parts (like A RR’s) and “experimental” parts (like MB RR’s). > On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Ruga <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > Read the headers of RFCs; some o them are explicitly labeled as standard. > Most of them are request for comments. > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <'kmcgr...@pccc.com'> wrote: >> On 2/8/2017 8:52 AM, Ruga wrote: >> > Not all RFCs are standards. >> > Educate yourself. >> The personal attacks aren't necessary. These RFCs are the basis for >> effectively 100% of the email on the planet for decades. If that's not >> a standard, what is?
