On 17-Jul-20 04:11, Joel Halpern wrote: > If we were to do what? Publish IETF Stream (rough consensus) > Informational and Experimental RFCs? We already do that. And have done > so for many years. > > If you are trying to argue that we should use a different form of > publication, please make and justify that argument. There is lots of > disinformation and misinformation out there. (I recently observed > another SDO citing an expired individual draft as if it were an approved > RFC.) I hope everyone realises that this conversation has been going on for about 25 years. It actually doesn't matter, from this point of view, what the document series is called or what the boilerplate says. It will still be cited as "The IETF says..." sometimes. Just look here for a recent example: https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/08/developers_renew_push_to_get/ Brian > > Yours, > Joel > > On 7/16/2020 11:04 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: >>> I also note that many other SDOs publish informative, >> non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports and >> that things we would call Experimental (or our original >> definition of Proposed Standard) show up as things "for trial >> use". So, again, fwiw, we are not the only, or even the first, >> body to conclude that formal review, consensus, and publication >> of such documents is a practical necessity. >> >> If we were to do this, we need another term besides RFC. After 20 years, everyone "knows" that RFC means an Internet standard. >> >> (Yes, I exaggerate about what everyone knows) >> > >
