Bob Braden wrote: > > *> > *> If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the > *> IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn't capture work > *> well enough to be archived as an RFC then it ought to fade from IETF > *> I-D storage. > > Grenville, > > Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge > as standards, True, but to be fair, I actually said "...to be archived as an RFC." Although I might appear to have succumbed to "RFC == standard" mentality, I haven't really :) > and the fact that some working group chooses not to > "capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of > preservation. Yes, that's true. I simply believe that we already have a mechanism in our posession for WGs (who are the best judges) to archive their developed wisdom and insights - the Informational RFC. If WGs aren't using this method then that's a problem we can fix without creating an indestructable I-Ds. I'd hope. (I've used Informational status for this very purpose myself a few times, so I'm biased.) > After all, the technical problems evolve, and our > solutions need to evolve too; ideas that did not make it at one > stage may turn out to be important in the future. And, I believe > you are surrendering too easily the over-emphasis on standards > that Fred decried in his message. Hopefully you were thinking of someone else ;) > > *> > *> Is the standard for Informational currently that onerous? > > Certainly not. But the community (and especially its chosen > leadership) need to believe in the importance of using Informational > to capture important documents and ideas as RFCs. Absolutely agree. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au I come from a LAN downunder.