RE: 2026, draft, full, etc.

> I've suggested before that the advancement of a specification 
> is a highly overloaded action - it implies that the IETF 
> thinks it's a good idea, it implies that the specification is 
> sound, it implies it's well deployed.
Does the IETF have a way to communicate that a specification is 
a good idea with a sound specification and that is well deployed?
For that matter, does the IETF have a way to make that determination?

One way in which the IETF has conveyed additional info in the past
is by designating RFCs as part of a BCP or FYI series. Similar 
mechanisms could be used to convey that a specification is more
than just a plain old humdrum RFC.

The point of all this being, that if the IETF does communicate that
certain RFCs are of a higher class than others, it makes it harder
for others to misunderstand the meaning (or mislead others about the
meaning) of RFC status for some particular protocol.

--Michael Dillon


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf