At 05:35 PM 3/26/2004, Eliot Lear wrote: >>Personally, I'm more concerned by WGs demanding their right to >>have their half-baked specifications published as RFCs, and the >>for IESG to approve them without any IETF review or other >>community review, or (as has happened in the past) even when >>substantial oversights or design flaws in those specifications >>were pointed out by individuals. >Please cite an example. That, I think, would be counter productive. I think it fairly apparent that there is a fair amount of crap (by mine, your, or anyone's opinion) published as RFCs. I content that much of that crap was produced by the IETF. But my point, in regards to this proposal, is that the bar for Informational/Experimental is not "half-baked" nor "won't cause harm" nor "crap", but whether it provides information is of reasonable use to the Internet technical community and meets the (low) editorial/technical standards for RFCs. Keith is trying to raise the bar. I prefer to keep the bar low. I, frankly, don't see a problem with there being more crap published as RFCs, whether produced by WGs or produced by individuals. >In what case was there not a last call? WG documents submitted for Informational and Experimental publication are not necessarily subject to IETF Last Call. Also note that IESG review of such document is "minimal" (per RFC 2418). Kurt