Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the
*> IETF and be archived as an RFC. If it (the I-D) doesn't capture work
*> well enough to be archived as an RFC then it ought to fade from IETF
*> I-D storage.
Grenville,
Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge
as standards,
True, but to be fair, I actually said "...to be archived as an RFC." Although
I might appear to have succumbed to "RFC == standard" mentality, I haven't
really :)
and the fact that some working group chooses not to
"capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of
preservation.
Yes, that's true. I simply believe that we already have a mechanism in
our posession for WGs (who are the best judges) to archive their developed
wisdom and insights - the Informational RFC. If WGs aren't using this method
then that's a problem we can fix without creating an indestructable I-Ds.
I'd hope. (I've used Informational status for this very purpose myself a
few times, so I'm biased.)
After all, the technical problems evolve, and our
solutions need to evolve too; ideas that did not make it at one
stage may turn out to be important in the future. And, I believe
you are surrendering too easily the over-emphasis on standards
that Fred decried in his message.
Hopefully you were thinking of someone else ;)
*>
*> Is the standard for Informational currently that onerous?
Certainly not. But the community (and especially its chosen
leadership) need to believe in the importance of using Informational
to capture important documents and ideas as RFCs.
Absolutely agree.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.