I agree. A potentially incorrect target category is
more useful during the review stage than no category
at all.
As an editor of one ID, I struggled with the benefit of
listing a category, versus the concern that the mysterious
IETF editors might throw it back for "non-conformance".
I've since gathered that there is considerable freedom
here, but I think some explicit comments or addition to
the template would make it a little easier for newbies
like me.
Cameron Young
INETCO Systems Ltd.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt(_at_)OpenLDAP(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:33 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Intended category of I-Ds
I believe the I-D guidelines should be revised to recommend
authors include a statement indicating which RFC category the
I-D is intended to be published in. This allows the reviewer
to apply determine a level of scrutity based upon the intended
category.
I've come a cross a number of WG I-Ds which did not indicate
their intended category AND the WG I-D didn't provide appropriate
clarification. (Yes, I've brought this to the attention of
the WG chairs and I-D authors).
Comments?