ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

2009-08-31 14:30:12
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Wed try very hard to make it clear to folks that there is a difference between standards track documents and non-standards track documents. Independent Stream documents are not standards track documents.

And I agree that there is an issue of the community not distinguishing among standards-track, informational, and experimental documents. But that's a separable problem that is, in my opinion, of much smaller consequence.

I assert that the distinction between these classes of documents is much, much smaller than the distinction between IETF-reviewed documents and independent stream documents.


Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this is not a change in practice. This is the practice we have had for more than the last 15 years. If, for Independent Submissions, it is that big a problem, I would expect ot have heard of it.

Perhaps I'm just unclear on the frequency of independent submissions -- but can you find me an RFC that came from a source other than the IETF that does not include a prominent note indicating that fact?

I'm under the distinct impression that historical practice tagged all (or almost all) such documents with a prominent note. The proposed procedure tries to make this an extreme exception, not the norm.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>