From: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)QUALCOMM(_dot_)COM>
...
Dave's message only said that technical merit has no bearing on
publication of Informational or Experimental RFCs. He (nor anyone
else in this thread as far as I can tell) mad no claim that we ought
to determine technical merit on the basis of the vendors, nor that we
base a decision for publication based solely on who those vendors
are, nor that we fawn over vendors products. He suggested that we
allow them to document current practice. Unless (cf. 2026) "the IESG
considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with,
or is actually inimical to, an established IETF effort" (which I have
not heard out of the IESG yet), the RFC editor should (with the
required changes of getting rid of "implied standardhood") publish
the document.
Do I understand correctly that you think that
draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-addr-cls-02.txt
should have been published as an RFC?
Since technical merit is irrelevant, you must be in favor of
publishing draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-04.txt.
Do you prefer Informational or Experimental?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com