Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"SM" <sm at resistor dot net> wrote:

Some people interpret RFCs as Internet Standards even though the document contains "It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

The document also says "Request for Comments," which is not even remotely true -- it represents the end of a long reviewing and commenting and evaluating process, not the beginning -- and it also says "Network Working Group," when there are over 100 active WGs but none with that name.

The more boilerplate takes over a document, the less readers will be inclined to interpret any of it literally.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]