[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.
> *> [...]
> 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