> I've suggested before that the advancement of a specification > is a highly overloaded action - it implies that the IETF > thinks it's a good idea, it implies that the specification is > sound, it implies it's well deployed. Does the IETF have a way to communicate that a specification is a good idea with a sound specification and that is well deployed? For that matter, does the IETF have a way to make that determination? One way in which the IETF has conveyed additional info in the past is by designating RFCs as part of a BCP or FYI series. Similar mechanisms could be used to convey that a specification is more than just a plain old humdrum RFC. The point of all this being, that if the IETF does communicate that certain RFCs are of a higher class than others, it makes it harder for others to misunderstand the meaning (or mislead others about the meaning) of RFC status for some particular protocol. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf