On 23/12/2016 10:12, Hector Santos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is that the new modus operandi within the IETF, that extremely weak,
> poorly engineered Informational Docs can be fast tracked as a
> "standard" in the IETF?
No, that's just standard marketing lies. If anybody actually reads the
RFC in question, it says:
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Regards
Brian
>
> I hope not. Especially when a proposed standard ADSP rfc5617 was
> officially abandoned for the 100% same issues and problems its
> replacement "Super ADSP" a.k.a. DMARC has. So if we abandoned ADSP
> for reason X and DMARC suffers the same exact X problem, shouldn't it
> be abandoned as well?
>