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