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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Dec 18 06:28:29 PST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> We are talking about document quality and a brand reflection of that. I
> would be the first to agree that there are awful documents that came
> through the IETF stream and that many good documents have come though
> other streams. However, what people are looking for is the understanding
> of the process that leads to quality that is in the IETF stream

If there is a problem, it is the uninitiated treating every RFC as a
requirements document.

I believe there is value in asserting that standards-track documents and
BCPs receive more attention than others, because they do. So the
standards level or BCP tag tells the reader what needs to be told.

However, plenty of last calls and high-level reviews of informational
documents are ignored or largely mechanistic exactly because they aren't
 intended to influence the way standards track and BCPs do. There is no
utility in tagging a document that is not intended to be binding and not
reviewed in that context.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklKXg0ACgkQE5f5cImnZruuOwCfbvyHRWZdmYUZuW7zVKBpH4h1
J7EAoMKsGC8ywxmxmdVRdnAayhRGVEee
=Dl+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list