I oppose publication of this as an RFC.
It is about politics, not about technical matters, and politics is the art of
the possible. Even if this
proposal succeeds in persuading (most of) the IETF to rethink the meaning of
'Proposed Standard',
its impact on the rest of the world will be nil. The rest of the world will see
more 'Proposed Standard's and will assume that they have been produced with the
same care, consideration and review as in the past decade. Which will be a
mistake.
If you must have a new lightweight, 'back-to-the-2026' offering, then the name
must make it clear that that is what it is and any use of the word 'Standard'
for it would be wrong, regardless of the original intention of RFC2026. Rather
it should be along the lines of 'Prototype Specification' or Experimental or
Preliminary or ...
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf