It appears that Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> said: >On 10-Dec-24 05:27, Eliot Lear wrote: >> But it is, Joe. The proof is that the ISE gets requests all the time from people saying that the need the RFC # in order to gain customer adoption. That doesn't mean >don't EVER get deployed but at least then we've done our due diligence. > >This does, however, suggests by analogy that allowing an I-D to satisfy a "Specification Required" IANA assignment policy is not acceptable. BCP 26 (RFC 8126) requires "a >permanent and readily available public specification" which also implies due diligence. Every I-D states clearly that "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as >reference material" which seems to make things very clear, with or without a mythical 6 months expiry. That just seems perverse. If I took the I-D, snipped the boilerplate off the top, and stuck it on some other random web server, as far as I know that satisfies Specification Required. We've had the problem of people thinking that I-Ds are RFCs and thinking that every RFC is a standard for decades, and I am not aware of anything that has helped. If we really wanted to fix it I suppose we could try to revamp our publication process and stop calling things RFCs and instead call them Standard-2024-123 or Info-2024-456 but that seems rather unlikely and we'd still have 50 years of history to try to rewrite. R's, John
