On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or
Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG
has at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a
document may move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard and
Internet Standard) or Historic if its implementation and deployment
warrant this. The IESG publishes a short note explaining the
rationale when changing designations.
Seems mostly reasonable.
I do believe that there is value in the BCP status, and would add it
to the above. PS presumes that we are testing something, like a
protocol, while BCP presumes that we are stating something that is
believed to be true now but might become untrue and need to be
reconsidered in the future, like a policy.
I would also argue in favor of the "Historic" status. Documents are
rarely published as historic, although it has happened (RFC 1716).
But they should be allowed to become historic at some future date.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf