07.05.2011 0:29, John R. Levine wrote:
Why invent something new? The Experimental category covers what you
want to name "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later"; Experimental docs.
are fine for permanent record of some protocol to encourage its
experimental implementations to produce the Standards Track document of
really high level (since it's based on received experience with this
protocol). Some recent RFCs are good examples; see eg.
This suggests that perhaps we should rename "Proposed Standard" to
"Not a Standard But Might Be One Later," promote the PS published
under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling
them "RFC"s. Maybe we should have a "PROP" series for PS docs, and
only give them "RFC" numbers later, when they progress.
Well, you know, the "Not a Standard But Might Be One Later" really are
The other problem (if it is) is that implementators really don't care
whether the Standards Track document is Proposed, Draft or Full; as
mentioned before in this thread, everything named RFC is considered to
be stable and OK for implementation (maybe, except Historic documents
:-). And this can't be changed; this is established; this is
implementator's mentality. Considering it, many WGs/folks who once
wrote Proposed Standard see no sense to move it forward to Draft and
Full. Considering this, even though it was planned by RFC 2026 in the
other way, Proposed Standards are actually worth that scrutiny they are
currently given (even though I personally can hardly agree with this
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list