At 03:28 PM 4/8/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
does not have sufficient technical merit to be published by IETF, and
that IETF's publication of a document that tends to promote the use
Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been open to
all wishing it. It is deemed an essential public service to afford that
publication channel to anyone feeling that the Internet Community needs
access to an archival copy of an Internet-related document, proprietary or
otherwise.
The "IETF" imprimatur applies only to Proposed, Draft, Standard and BCP
RFCs. At most, the IETF has typically seen fit only to attach its own
disclaimer text to other drafts about which it has concerns.
Concern for public misunderstanding of "RFC" vs. "IETF standard" is very
long-standing and unresolved. To date, this concern has not been used as a
reason for entirely refusing publication. (Making sure that there is no
misleading text in the document and that the document has an appropriate
title are different matters.)
Now, if the authors of the draft in question are seeking standardization,
then the matter of acceptable technical merit is appropriate. However I
don't recall seeing a Last Call from the IESG.
d/
=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA