Jim Fenton wrote:
I'm saying (recognizing this is well outside the scope of the working
group) that IETF has a problem in that it publishes informational,
experimental, and historic RFCs and many people outside IETF immediately
think anything with an RFC number is an "IETF standard". That dilutes
the value of the IETF standards process and (talking like a marketing
person) the IETF "brand".
Complaints about this date back at least 15 years. The IETF has managed to
muddle along in spite of the dilution. Small observation: Some people pay
attention to the details of standardization and some don't. Someone who thinks
SPF is a 'standard' is probably not the target of formal standards effort, but
that does not make formal standardization a wasted effort.
Referring back to my message, I'm advocating that if we do anything, we
move to Draft Standard, and advocating that we not do another spin at
Proposed Standard. So are we agreeing?
I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the specification
at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're
discussing for the -bis effort.)
Have you heard otherwise?
But I feel that if we go
directly to DS, the constraints in that process will help assure that
doesn't happen.
Yup.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html