On May 5, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: On 05/05/2013 01:37 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:On 2/05/2013 18:17, Carsten Bormann wrote:On May 2, 2013, at 07:21, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:There is already some misconception between I-RFC and Standards Tracks RFC.Yeah, all kinds of issues, but if we created a new thing here inThat is a matter of naming and marketing ("candidate RFC"?). FWIW. I think the difference between Informational and Standards track is fairly easily explained (in that context), having all the information in the headers and boilerplates helps. Where things become difficult is at the point where the maintenance of our standards need to be explained and questions about progression on the standards ladder get asked. Personally I hope that RFC 6410 has the effect that we, as a community, get serious about promoting our proposed standards, or obsolete them. I wonder how many standards got promoted after 6410 was published. --Olaf |