On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue
here is the actual level of 'independence" of the RFC Editor, and the
potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet
The problem with such documents is that their final designation does
not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy.
I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations
with "Non-Standard", and requiring that any non-WG product (including
submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother
anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it
would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort.
Ietf mailing list