On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can you explain your different interpretation? I see "Standards Track", which clearly means RFC, and "not Standards Track". Assuming that to also mean RFC would be a logical error. If the entire premise of 3967 is to describe how RFCs refer to other RFCs of a lower maturity levels, it never outright says it. I agree that this would appear to be the intent and interpretation, but it seems like 3967-bis might be a neater way to address your central concern (that we also refer to things other than RFCs, OMG, NIH!) FWIW, the narrow scope here (and in 3967) does us all a disservice when a slightly larger mallet would do the job more definitively.