On 05/05/2013 01:37 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
On 2/05/2013 18:17, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On May 2, 2013, at 07:21, "Eggert, Lars" <lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yeah, all kinds of issues, but if we created a new thing here in
between WGLC and PS, the broader industry would never understand.
That is a matter of naming and marketing ("candidate RFC"?).
There is already some misconception between I-RFC and Standards Tracks RFC.
I don't believe that adding a new name/category would help: instead it
would add to the confusion.
Regards, Benoit
Interesting that you mention this.
A note from a recent experience: Together with Olaf we are participating
in a European Multistakeholder Platform for ICT standardization, see
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:349:0004:0006:EN:PDF
The aim of this group is to find out how to reference IETF RFC (and
standards from other organizations, like the W3C) since the European
Commission seems to be unable to just reference standards beyond a small
set of organizations (such as ETSI).
As you can imagine, the different types of RFCs are not that easy to
understand for those who do not participate actively in the IETF.
Getting others to understand the different streams, the various document
types and different standards is already difficult and maybe there is
room for simplification here.