--On Saturday, 10 December, 2005 11:47 -0600 wayne
<wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <439A086A(_dot_)10705(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> Dave Crocker
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
I'd suggest the most sensible thing to do is to reclassify
both of them as Informational, to document what you might
find in some TXT records, publish them, and be done with it.
Yes. This seems like exactly the right choice, since it is
what is typically done for documenting
existing practise that is outside the IETF process.
This really doesn't have anything directly to do with the SPF
I-D, but more about IETF process.
The idea that individual submissions would be Information RFCs
was something I believe for quite a while. However, a year
ago, I checked, and found quite a few standard track RFCs that
were from individual submissions.
Sure. The process has always permitted non-WG documents to be
approved as standard track documents if there is sufficient
evidence of quality, appropriateness, and community consensus
behind them.
I just checked again, and in the last several months, I found
over a dozen individual submissions and *none* of them were
approved as Informational. Most were Proposed Standard.
While some of them were the result of working groups that had
dissolved and such, many (most?) were only reviewed by one or
more working groups.
This is because many (I don't have statistics, but they could be
pulled out if needed) individual (or "independent" -- there is a
subtle difference that I can't keep straight) go directly to the
RFC Editor for publication. Those are _all_ Informational or
Experimental, since standards-track docs cannot be published
without IESG signoff (presumably based on IETF consensus). More
or less since RFC 3932 was published a bit over a year ago, you
can distinguish Informational docs approved by the IESG (with
the implications of that consensus) from those submitted
directly to the RFC Editor by observing that the latter now bear
a rather pointed "you can't believe everything you read and
should probably not believe this" disclaimer.
Is this a change/evolution in IETF procedures from
days-gone-by?
The only change was that in the years starting somewhat over a
decade ago and presumably ending with 3932, the IESG took a more
aggressive review and intervention role on documents submitted
to the RFC Editor than it supposedly does today. The other
change is that, as the RFC Editor has gotten backed up,
increasing priority has been given to getting IESG-approved
documents out relative to submissions to the RFC Editor. That
has occasionally resulted in the processing queue for
independent submissions direct to the RFC Editor grinding to a
near-halt. But there have been no substantive changes on the
standards-track, or WG Informational, processing side of the
equation.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf