On 4/20/2015 3:01 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Yup - new visitors to the IETF also seem to not quite understand what > an ID is - they seem to think that, because something is published as > an Internet Draft, and is on the IETF site it means that somehow the > IETF has vetted it or approves of it. > > This has led to multiple instances where someone (often a reporter) > will find an ID and then claim that "the IETF believes" or "the IETF > thinks" $whatever is in the draft[0]. The last time this happened I > got fed up and wrote > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-06 Warren, While related, I think that's a different issue, not unlike the the "Not all RFCs are Standards". The main I-D page already contains an explicit statement about non-status. So the problem you cite concerns careless reading. I suppose one could argue that the phrase "working documents of the IETF" could encourage a misunderstanding, in spite of the explicit text 2 paragraphs down. I suppose that first text could be softened a bit, to something like: Internet-Drafts are working documents with no formal status. Some of these documents are in development through the IETF, its areas and its working groups and might, eventually, reach completion. I doubt that will have much effect, but it might help a little. Still, failure to read the plain language on that page is different from failing to find a policy statement that is buried in an obscure place. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net