ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Second Last Call: <draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt> (Web Host

2011-07-12 15:06:54
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal,
for a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I
do question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general
mechanism.

How about publishing it on the standards track but not as a general
mechanism (i.e., why not clarify when it is and is not appropriate)?

How about publishing as Informational?

RFC 2026 says:

   4.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK

   Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
   through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
   These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and
   "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1.

If there is no strong consensus and commitment to work the document
along the standards track up to full standard, then it shouldn't
be on the standards track at all.

For documents where the only purpose of publishing it is only to obtain
an rfc number for it, but otherwise just describe "this is how others
have solved a particular problem before" and let vendors and implementors
wiggle out interop, then Informational is quite appropriate.


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