On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston <gih@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue here is the actual level of 'independence" of the RFC Editor, and the potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet Standards Process
The problem with such documents is that their final designation does not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy. I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations with "Non-Standard", and requiring that any non-WG product (including submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort. -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf