At 09:12 AM 2/4/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
The time spent doing such reviews was time taken away from other,
far more useful activities. If the IESG had the option of saying
"don't publish this as an RFC" and having it stick, then it
wouldn't have been necessary to take up so much time explaining
why bad ideas are bad.
Basic RFC rule: informational specs are published. You want to change
that to: informational specs are published if someone approves.
The rest of the details are minor, compared with this considerable change
that you want to impose.
And, by the way, there is no empirical basis for claiming that all that
IETF review produces a useful effect.
(fyi, i was on the iesg when the rule for that review and comment was
created. seemed like a good idea at the time. these days, i think that
simply making clear the thing is not a standard is sufficient.
hence, rather than "provisional" i suggest using the term "proprietary".
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464