ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Drafts that can't be serious

2015-04-20 17:35:18
On 4/20/2015 3:01 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Yup - new visitors to the IETF also seem to not quite understand what
an ID is - they seem to think that, because something is published as
an Internet Draft, and is on the IETF site it means that somehow the
IETF has vetted it or approves of it.

This has led to multiple instances where someone (often a reporter)
will find an ID and then claim that "the IETF believes" or "the IETF
thinks" $whatever is in the draft[0]. The last time this happened I
got fed up and wrote
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-06


Warren,

While related, I think that's a different issue, not unlike the the "Not
all RFCs are Standards".  The main I-D page already contains an explicit
statement about non-status.  So the problem you cite concerns careless
reading.

I suppose one could argue that the phrase "working documents of the
IETF" could encourage a misunderstanding, in spite of the explicit text
2 paragraphs down.  I suppose that first text could be softened a bit,
to something like:

   Internet-Drafts are working documents with no formal status.  Some of
these documents are in development through the IETF, its areas and its
working groups and might, eventually, reach completion.

I doubt that will have much effect, but it might help a little.

Still, failure to read the plain language on that page is different from
failing to find a policy statement that is buried in an obscure place.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net