Hi,
On 2009-8-31, at 18:34, Adam Roach wrote:
In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt>, there is going to be a strong
presumption on their part that the document was produced by the
IETF. In
the cases that this presumption is incorrect, it seems tantamount to
deception to tuck the distinction between IETF and non-IETF documents
away in an obscure header field.
I agree with you. This is exactly why I had originally proposed to
stick the words "NOT AN INTERNET STANDARD" into the top left corner on
the first page (where it currently says "Network Working Group") for
all non-standards-track documents in all streams.
That proposal got shot down with the (paraphrased) argument "we should
label RFCs with what they are rather with what they are not." I still
disagree with this, because the #1 question what looking at any RFC
should be "is this an Internet standard or not?"
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf