Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? Pre-WWW, having
publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was
certainly useful. However, in today's environment of thousands of
Internet-connected publication venues, why would we possibly ask ourselves to
shoot ourselves in the foot by continuing the practice of Informational RFC
publication?
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
With respect, Brian, I don't think this is simply the failure of journalists
to discern the distinction between Informational RFCs and Standards Track
RFCs. Nobody has made the claim that the IETF produced a standard for
accounting and billing for QoS or anything else. Informational RFCs are a
perfectly fine record of what certain people in the IETF community may be
"envisioning" at a given time, as long as people understand that
"envisioning" is not the same as "requiring," which is basic English literacy.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf