At Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:09:09 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > Paul> On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be > Paul> an Informational RFC coming through the IETF process: > > Paul> At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a consensus call on > >> whether we have sufficient support to be making this sort of > >> statement. If not, then I'll be happy to take my document to > >> the rfc editor. > > Paul> This is pointless. No one other than an expert at the IETF > Paul> process could differentiate between the two types of > Paul> Informational RFCs in RFC repository (and many IETF process > Paul> experts would not get it right on the first try). An > Paul> Informational RFC is an Informational RFC regardless of the > Paul> path that got it published. > > The difference is the IESG note. I respect your belief that many > people would not understand that difference. Well, the difference is in part the IESG note. More importantly, the question is whether the IESG intends to hold future work to the requirements in this document. If they do, then this document needs significantly more review and a much stronger showing of consensus. Arguably, if they do it should be required to be PS or BCP. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf