[rfc-i] RFC means RFC, not Request For Comment

SM 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 [1] fall outside the province of the RSE.  I 
prefer to have Eric Bruger ask them as he knows how things work around here.

Regards,
-sm

1. See comment from Craig Partridge about the longer view
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2011-October/002767.html 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list