[rfc-i] Status of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis?
Paul Hoffman / VPNC
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jun 10 14:13:07 PDT 2004
At 1:21 PM -0700 6/10/04, Bob Braden wrote:
> *> - This sets a really bad precedent. It is almost exactly akin to
> *> "create your protocol from the Internet Draft that we will keep
> *> renewing; we're not going to bother to get an RFC".
>Sorry, I don't get your point. What is wrong with a living document
>as a bridge.
In the IETF, this is usually considered a Bad Thing. If something is
ready to become an RFC, it should become an RFC. Otherwise, people
will assume that the "living document" is stable, and if it changes
later, there will be ugly surprises.
> *> - The draft expired many months ago, and is only being kept alive
> *> because of its status in the queue. Again, a bad precedent for the
> *> rest of the IETF.
>It happens. But in fact we should update it, and as I said we will do
>so before San Diego.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest