At 05:06 PM 4/8/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Publication under Informational and Experimental has typically been
> open to all wishing it.
uh, no. this is a common myth, but it's not true, and hasn't been
true for many years.
First, let's be clear that your statement includes a contradiction: If
something "hasn't been true for many years" then it is not a myth but,
rather, a poorly-known change in policy.
That's not nit-picking, it is intended to emphasize that the policy WAS in
force.
RFC 223, "Instructions to RFC Authors" is a bit vague on this, though it
does contain an essential statement, in Section 2, along with various other
qualifiers:
In some cases it may be determined that the submitted document is not
appropriate material to be published as an RFC.
So this does make clear that publication is not an absolute guarantee.
The guiding policy "for may years" has been relevance/interest for the
Internet community.
One would be hard-pressed to inspect the author-list of
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt, the work of the associated companies, and the
clear need for optimizations of application performance, and then deem this
document not relevant.
That moves us back to 'technical adequacy'. Again, that distinguishes
between "interest value" and "IETF standardization", rather than "publish"
vs. "do not publish".
d/
ps. I'm done. There are more important aspects to the debate about this
draft.
=-=-=-=-=
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