[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 16 15:15:07 PDT 2008



  *> 
  *> The counterpoint to this proposal is that there are cases when drafts,
  *> individual or other, are purposefully not published as RFCs, such as
  *> they are redundant to (or actively oppose) an existing standards-track
  *> RFC,   they are considered by a WG that is directly germane to the draft
  *> and the WG decides that the draft should not become a WG work item, 

Andy,

I believe that it has generally agreed that it is OK, even desirable
sometimes, to publish "roads not taken" RFCs in the independent submission
track.  They are appropriately marked by an IESG note, and the RFC Editor
ensures that no claims are made of standards status.  THe IESG is allowed
to delay publication by up to 18 months if the working group is
actively working on competing work.  This is the "community memory"
function that Fred talke about.

  *> or the IESG or RFC editor has previously reviewed the draft and decided
  *> that it does not have minimal quality to be published (such as a
  *> series of drafts I recall from the past on number theory).

Sure, although most authors heavily revise in that case, to clear
the bar.

May your link never go down,

Bob Braden



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list