Hi John,
At 08:34 PM 12-07-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
Coming back to the issue of whether document status may be
misunderstood, we also know, because we have rather intense
discussions about it every few years, that people confuse
non-standard "IETF documents" and non-standard RFCs with
standards. As suggested above, in most of the cases I know
about, that confusion is not accidental even though there may
be innocent victims. Instead, we see organizations promoting
their products by claiming that they are based on "IETF
specifications" (i.e., I-Ds or Informational or Experimental
RFCs regardless of Stream) and implying those are standards.
Or they may claim "published by the IETF" and close to
standardization (i.e., I-Ds) or even imply that those are
standards. We are not going to prevent any of that by changes
in terminology or boilerplate: most of the liars know they are
lying.
The IETF is promoting a RFC on its web site. That RFC is
"Experimental". However, there isn't any mention of that in the blog article.
I suggest reading the first comment at http://r.elandsys.com/r/51642
as it might be relevant to "document status".
One option is to make changes to move the IETF towards
standardization and cross-area work so that "published by the IETF"
is aligned with that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
