John,
and they meant the current 2434 definition
Except, perhaps, for the documents that were written before 2434
with a rather specific definition --discussed with the IESG at
the time-- in mind. If 2434 modifies them, then 2434 can be
updated and the update can update all of the earlier documents
as well.
RFC 2434 doesn't update any IANA instructions that exist in RFCs that
predate 2434 - I'd encourage folk to go and read the document... I'd
like to think it's a useful read :-)
If 2434 doesn't modify them, then we are, for better
or worse, back into the situation we were in with 2119 --
documents could either use it or could not refer to it but,
instead, make up their own defintions.
That has always been and continues to be an option. But for the
majority of documents, chosing from a menu of well-defined choices
seems to be simpler for everyone. IANA also has to be able to
understand what needs to happen, for instance, and the burden on IANA
shouldn't be excessive either. Sticking to well-known definitions when
possible seems to help here.
The fact that there has been significant traffic on this
probably justifies an update / clarification. For the record, I
don't care what that clarification is although:
* I think pushing all of these things toward standards
track would be a mistake.
I agree. That is why there are categories like "expert review", or
"First Come First Served"
* I think that an intermediate position between
"standards track document" and "RFC publication" is a
desirable thing to have, when the WG's position is
really that some determination of consensus and
reasonableness by the IETF (not just by IANA) is
desirable.
The menu choice out of 2434 that I suggest to people for the above is
"Expert Review".
Thomas