[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Nov 29 08:36:25 PST 2010


At 6:17 PM +0200 11/29/10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>Here is a citation from RFC 2026:
>
>>  Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
>>    subseries of the RFC series [4].  When a specification has been
>>    adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
>>    "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
>>    series. (see section 4.1.3)
>>
>>    Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
>>    statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
>>    perform some operations or IETF process function.  These RFCs form
>>    the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
>>    additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
>>    in the RFC series. (see section 5)
>>
>>    Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
>>    should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs.  Such non-standards
>>    track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
>>    standardization.  Non-standards track specifications may be published
>>    directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
>>    of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
>Here we have an exhaustive list of RFC categories.

Er, no we don't. There is also "no category given", which is implied by the fact that no one ever gave the hundreds of early RFCs a category. I see nothing in RFC 2026 that says, or even implies what you say.

>There is no mention of any others
>categories (except 'Historic') of RFC. I hope I have answered your question.

You have indeed: you interpret RFC 2026 different that the rest of the IETF community has for well over a decade.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list