Just as one other tidbit in this thread, this argument is somewhat
intertwined with the argument of if this document should be PS or
experimental. I've been arguing for PS.
On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. One significant change in the new draft is the
addition in Section 7 of "In all cases, new values are assigned
only for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG." This change
came at the request of Cullen Jennings, an AD. In that request, he
says "Glad to talk about pros and cons of this", so I am Cc'ing him
on this thread.
This change precludes IANA from registering values for IESG-
approved Experimental RFCs, or IESG-approved independently-
submitted Informational RFCs. Normally, "standards track only" is
used in protocols where there is a limited-size namespace, and "RFC
only" is used in places where namespace size is not a concern but
there is a desire for a stable, long-lived reference for every
entry in the namespace.
Maybe we want "RFC only", not "standards track only", particularly
so that people can create Experimental RFCs and have them be used
in an interoperable fashion as a way of determining whether they
should later be elevated to standards track.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html