At 15:44 22/09/00, Pete Loshin wrote:
IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a
"work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background
information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months
of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful.
Do such RFCs actually exist ?
Do you have a specific example ? I don't know of any.
I have always heard that the RFC Editor will not publish
any document as an RFC if it tries to reference an Internet-Draft.
Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their
latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been
submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an
Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years.
We don't need to make the situation worse than it is.
I agree with Steve Kent and Bob Braden. If folks don't want
an RFC, they can always put their document out as a company
Technical Report, on the web, and/or via many other methods.
Ran
rja(_at_)inet(_dot_)org