[rfc-i] RFC 5000 on Internet Official Protocol Standards

Olaf M. Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed May 21 14:05:30 PDT 2008

For the IAB I wrote:
> *> That the RFC Editor wants to go on record as not agreeing with this
> *> argument is fine, but calling it an error goes too far.
> *>
> *> [...]

You responded:
> If you trace this thread back, you will find that the word "error"
> was introduced by Paul Hoffman.  I apologize for quoting his
> word without putting quotation marks around it, as I should have
> since it was his word.

This seems to be one of those cases where mail fails to capture tone.  
Let us just remember the original intend of our mail exchange: inform  
about the decision process and the arguments used.

In fact, and for completeness, there were two other arguments why STD1  
should be Informational that I had not mentioned in my previous mail.

o STD1 references Draft Standards and Proposed Standards, which an  
"Internet Standard" (per RFC2026) is not allowed to do, but an  
Informational doc can.

o STD1 contains no normative language, and nothing one can claim  
conformance to or implement.  Instead, it is basically a roadmap  
document (and roadmap RFCs are Informational).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list