SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-07-28 18:45, SM wrote:
At 04:13 PM 7/27/2011, Martin Rex wrote:
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. [...]
The above is incorrect.
Er, no. By definition, it's correct until we update RFC 2026.
Quoting the Status of this memo section from RFC 6305, RFC 6308, RFC
6319 and RFC 6331 which are Informational and from the IETF Stream:
"This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
Although it is, by definition, correct until RFC 2026 is updated, RFC
5741 is currently being used for the boilerplate in RFCs.
This actually caught me by surprise, but it is accurate.
RFC 5741, status Informational, specifies boilerplate for
Informational RFCs. The operative text is in Section 3.2.2:
"
" The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are suggested
" initial values and may be updated by stream definition document
" updates.
"
" IETF Stream:
" "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
" (IETF)."
"
" If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
" additional sentence should be added:
"
" "It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
" received public review and has been approved for publication by
" the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
"
" If there has not been such a consensus call, then this simply
" reads:
"
" "It has been approved for publication by the Internet
" Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
Frankly, I am not happy with this. An Informational track document
has effectively over-ruled RFC 2026, a BCP status document -- and
gone on to say that RFC 2026 may be further overruled by "stream
definition document updates" (whatever that may mean).
I _much_ prefer the RFC 2026 definition of Informational (and I
don't believe they should require extensive IESG scrutiny).
(BTW, I wonder to what extent our current repetition of the
argument about the IESG filing too many DISCUSSes is in reaction to
their scrutiny of Informational track documents.)
I don't have time today to research to what extent Informational
track RFCs have actually received "an IETF consensus call per IETF
process". Perhaps somebody else would like to respond on that...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf