Robert Sayre wrote:
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.
There IS certainly a case for some better way of differentiating between
the various types of RFC so that there is no misrepresentation to, or
misinterpretation by, the end user.
Perhaps we should add an indicator in the numbering scheme to call
this out, something like; RFC==consensus/std, iRFC==informational,
xRFC==independant, vRFC==vendor-spec etc etc.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf