On 30/05/2013 08:04, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 29 May 2013 18:42, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> /me wonders if we need a separate series for informational documentation
>
> Or maybe multiple paths, with multiple entry points.
We already do have exactly that, and there are many instances
of proprietary or local protocols being documented, but not
standardised, as Informational RFCs in the Independent stream.
Sometimes they squeeze through as Informational RFCs in the
IETF stream.
We also have BCPs, when there is robust consensus on good
operational practice. Again, we have Informational RFCs when
somebody wants to document current practice without seeking
consensus.
I'm not sure what we need to change.
Where we get into trouble seems to be when people want a rubber
stamp for something that doesn't make the cut for IETF consensus.
We have a little trouble saying "No." But I think we have a duty
to say "No" when something works but is believed to be bad for
the Internet as a whole.
Brian
>
> Perhaps instead of Proposed Standard, we have a Engineering Proposal for an
> engineering consensus, and a Submitted Proposal for an industry submission.
> Both would move to Internet Standard from there, if appropriate.
>
> I admit to picking names without the word standard in on purpose, but
> that's because I think we should reclaim PS... I know I'm in the rough.
>
> Dave.
>