On Friday 19 January 2007 16:39, 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.
+1 I think this would be much better.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html