On 3/11/09 3:24 PM, "Ofer Inbar" <cos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was also under the impression that a lot of RFCs are *not* "IETF RFCs", > since the RFC editor will publish certain types of RFCs without them > having gone through an IETF process. They certainly have gone through an IETF process to get published, whether they're a working group document or individual contribution. That's how they end up being published as RFCs. Maybe there's some cloudiness around the relationship between the RFC Editor and "the IETF." There's certainly some murk around who is part of the IETF. And maybe the IETF is process, not people (that would tend to explain a lot). >From a librarian perspective, the RFCs are a document series. That's a problem insofar as the IETF is perceived to be a standards body. Certainly in bodies like ETSI there's an explicit distinction between a "technical standard" and a "technical report" that I think may be clearer than the distinctions among IETF standards, IETF best practices documents, IETF experimental standards, IETF informational documents, and then orthogonally the various routes to publication. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf