RJ Atkinson wrote: > Some important things that the FSF folks seem NOT to understand, > and frankly seem to aggressively NOT want to understand, are: > > - Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track. > > - Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track. > So there is no "endorsement" by IETF in publishing such. A lot more silly fact, these days, is that all the published RFCs require IESG "endorsement". That being so, I fully agree with FSF folks against publication of silly RFCs. > I support the idea that virtually any document ought to be able > to be published as an Informational RFC or Experimental RFC. I do agree with the idea. And, it was the real practice in good old days when Jon was the RFC editor. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf