On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue
here is the actual level of 'independence" of the RFC Editor, and the
potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet
Standards Process
The problem with such documents is that their final designation does
not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy.
I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations
with "Non-Standard", and requiring that any non-WG product (including
submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother
anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it
would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort.
--
Robert Sayre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf