>>>>> "Michael" == Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Michael> It seems to me that neither ID status nor RFC status are
Michael> appropriate for these documents. The ID series is, by
Michael> design, ephemeral and generally not citeable. The RFC
Michael> series is stable and citeable, but the lead time for
Michael> introducing an RFC is somewhat north of 30 days or more.
Michael> I hate to open Pandora's box, but what I think we need is
Michael> a citable, stable document series that has a production
Michael> lead time similar to that of the IDs. I would probably
Michael> limit this to the non-technical administrivia we've been
Michael> recently inundated with.
Michael> *sigh*
Please provide some justification. You said that you needed these
things but you didn't really say why.
I also don't understand how this is any different than work that goes
on in a lot of protocol working groups.
I'm particularly confused about why we would have documents that we
neither want to be long-lived but that we cannot be bothered to
resubmit every six months. If we want the document to be long-lived,
what is wrong with RFC publication?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf