On 7/12/11 2:06 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
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.
Who said there isn't strong consensus and commitment to work the
document along the standards track? The only statement I've seen is that
it's not a generic solution for all metadata problems.
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.
I see no reason to make those assumptions here.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf