On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:35:31 -0700 Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The IETF might view it this way. Large parts of the > (standardization) world does not. One example in my field of work is > FLUTE, and the surrounding infrastructure of frameworks and FEC > codes. To the best of my recollection, these specifications were > originally issued as Experimental RFCs, for reasons of congestion > control worries. (They are also heavily encumbered, but that was not > really an issue according to my recollection.) The Experimental > status did not stop 3GPP and other SDOs to normatively reference > them, and treat them just like any other IETF RFC. Note that 3GPP > could NOT do that with a journal publication... I could name more > examples, both when it comes to referencing SDOs and referenced RFC > types (including normative references to at least Historic, Obsolete, > Informational). This is, I think, the second- or third-most-common topic on the IETF list: should we rename the document series to prevent that... (#1 is non-ASCII formats for RFCs; #2 -- by volume of postings, rather than frequency of discussion -- might be IPR.) Other than giving up the RFC label for Experimental documents, it's hard to see what the IETF can do. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf