At 05:35 PM 3/26/2004, Eliot Lear wrote:
Personally, I'm more concerned by WGs demanding their right to
have their half-baked specifications published as RFCs, and the
for IESG to approve them without any IETF review or other
community review, or (as has happened in the past) even when
substantial oversights or design flaws in those specifications
were pointed out by individuals.
Please cite an example.
That, I think, would be counter productive. I think it fairly
apparent that there is a fair amount of crap (by mine, your, or
anyone's opinion) published as RFCs. I content that much of
that crap was produced by the IETF.
But my point, in regards to this proposal, is that the bar for
Informational/Experimental is not "half-baked" nor "won't cause
harm" nor "crap", but whether it provides information is of
reasonable use to the Internet technical community and meets
the (low) editorial/technical standards for RFCs.
Keith is trying to raise the bar. I prefer to keep the bar
low. I, frankly, don't see a problem with there being more
crap published as RFCs, whether produced by WGs or produced by
In what case was there not a last call?
WG documents submitted for Informational and Experimental
publication are not necessarily subject to IETF Last Call.
Also note that IESG review of such document is "minimal"
(per RFC 2418).