Barry Leiba wrote: > > John said... > > Well, you know, the "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later" really are > > requesting comments. > > Yes, well, we all know that "RFC" has lost any real sense of its > expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of > the world, for whom "RFC" means "Internet standard". Correct. It really does not matter how *WE* call it, it is not going to affect in any way what the world does with it as long as it has the "published" status. In many areas 90% of the implementors are outside of the IETF. And if they get the task to implement and ship some protocol in a product -- they will check the RFC index for a document describing the protocol. And if there is exactly one version of a protocol (and ultimately just one RFC document describing it), then they going to use exactly that document for their implementation, indepent of what label&boilerplate the IETF has slapped on the front page. It really does not matter whether it reads "Informational", "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard" or "Standard". They need to implement it, there is just one document describing it, so really, what does this matter? And frankly, large parts of the internet run with protocols and specification that are "Informational" and "Proposed", and a non-marginal part even runs on I-Ds. The large majority out there just doesn't care how many document maturity levels the IETF uses. And the folks that prefer more numerous and easier I-D -> RFC transitions are likely the "early adopters" which are frequently shipping products based on I-Ds, and often the members of constituencies that would love to completely lock down a specification as soon as they ship a product based on it. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf