On 2007-03-31 17:15, Eliot Lear wrote:
Jeff,
As for informational vs an independent submission, I think there is a
factor to be considered. It seems to me that an informational IETF
document is a fine way to say "this is a good idea, and we think this
is the right way to do FOO, but we can't actually recommend it (for
whatever reason)". For example, we have at least one document that
defines the use of elliptic curve cryptography with one of our
protocols, which is informational because the working group that
produced it didn't feel they could recommend it as a standard due to
the hairy IPR issues surrounding that technology.
Most people outside of this organization can't tell the difference
between a standard and an informational document. They simply look at
the label "RFC" and are done. And now you are trying to cut the line
even thinner?
I think Jeff is trying to leave the line exactly where it is: the WG
(or the IETF if there is no WG) decides case by case, within the
envelope first defined by RFC 2026 and confirmed by RFC 3668 and 3979.
Personally I prefer this to any doctrinaire rules or to reliance on
precedent.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf