On 3/11/09 3:24 PM, "Ofer Inbar" <cos(_at_)aaaaa(_dot_)org> wrote:
I was also under the impression that a lot of RFCs are *not* "IETF RFCs",
since the RFC editor will publish certain types of RFCs without them
having gone through an IETF process.
They certainly have gone through an IETF process to get
published, whether they're a working group document or
individual contribution. That's how they end up being
published as RFCs. Maybe there's some cloudiness around
the relationship between the RFC Editor and "the IETF."
There's certainly some murk around who is part of the
IETF. And maybe the IETF is process, not people (that
would tend to explain a lot).
From a librarian perspective, the RFCs are a document
series. That's a problem insofar as the IETF is perceived
to be a standards body. Certainly in bodies like ETSI
there's an explicit distinction between a "technical
standard" and a "technical report" that I think may
be clearer than the distinctions among IETF standards,
IETF best practices documents, IETF experimental
standards, IETF informational documents, and then
orthogonally the various routes to publication.
Ietf mailing list