[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Q+A: Mnemonic to Proposed Standard

1992-04-02 11:36:58

Point of clarification:

A wide range of document types, including different status RFCs, may
be registered with IANA, for use within the MIME context.

The MIME document, however, should not cite an Experimental RFC, since
MIME would be prevented from making progress along the standards track,
by referencing a document of "lower" standards status.  Informational
status is an exception, since it is an explicit statement that the
document being cited is under separate (i.e., non-IETF) control.
(If the Informational document is on some other standards track, then
IETF rules of maturity apply.  For proprietary stuff, such as NFS,
the rule does *not* apply.  It is my impression that EUNet is not
a standards-making body, but rather its comparison to UUnet suggests
that it be viewed as a vendor.)

But I do not understand the reason for pursuing this issue:

There is no technical or operational requirement for having the MIME
document cite MNemonic and there are a significant number of WG members 
that have voiced objection to having the citation or for having  
MNemonic entered into the standards track at this time.

None of this (my statements or theirs) are intended to criticise
MNemonic.  Quite the opposite.  There has been a very, very, (one more
time) very strong and consistent set of statements that MNemonic appears
to be a Good Thing, within its scope.  But it needs to be introduced
into the general Internet carefully.

Have I missed something?