It could be:
Internet Drafts are documents that have been submitted to the IETF for consideration. They might reflect partial IETF consensus. They may also be in complete opposition to IETF consensus. The only requirement for publishing an I-D through the IETF process it that it bears copyright and IPR notices, consistent with IETF rules. It is inappropriate to assert that I-Ds are a product of the IETF or to cite them in any way except "as work in progress."
Thanks,
--MM--The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.