[rfc-i] RFC means RFC, not Request For Comment
sm at resistor.net
Tue Oct 25 11:12:07 PDT 2011
At 10:03 25-10-2011, Joe Touch wrote:
>The IETF lacks a standards compliance authority.
>Absent that, there's simply no point in claiming "RFC", or even
>"standards track RFC" means *anything*.
BCP 169 was published this month. The RFC (6382) originated from an
IETF working group. One of the Root server operators posted comments
outside the IETF about problems it identified in the draft and
mentioned that the "B in BCP is not necessarily so".
Claiming that a standard track RFC means anything might turn the
above from comment to IETF process issue especially if some body
starts enforcing compliance.
The points being raised on this mailing list requires a lot of
discussion; some of them  fall outside the province of the RSE. I
prefer to have Eric Bruger ask them as he knows how things work around here.
1. See comment from Craig Partridge about the longer view
More information about the rfc-interest