[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Rob Sayre rsayre at mozilla.com
Wed Dec 17 17:26:17 PST 2008


On 12/17/08 7:37 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> I agree there is utility in stating whether a doc is standards track or
> not standards track.
>    

Agree. The standards track implies a level of consensus (distinct from 
quality) that is important to differentiate.

> I don't agree that there is utility in explaining how each document has
> been vetted - or not. Many independent-stream docs have been reviewed
> more throughly and competently than some in the IETF stream.
>    
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>> I understand the desire not to put such negative sounding language on
>> everything, and I understand the total insanity of clamming that a
>> document from the "Internet Congestion Control Research Group"
>> authored by Sally Floyd would have a note on that indicates it was not
>> reviewed for congestion control. But that said, I do think that on
>> many documents we need to be clear about the limitations if they are
>> going to be RFC.

What limitations?

The IETF approves documents of wildly varying quality and applicability. 
Some documents get lots of review, and it makes them worse. The way to 
make the IETF process count for something is to produce better 
documents, not slap negative text on documents originating elsewhere. I 
agree with Joe.

- Rob


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list