[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Sep 27 09:44:02 PDT 2011
On 9/27/2011 9:38 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 9:30 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT:
>> 2. Claim to conform to RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>> Requirement Levels)
> I disagree; tTspecifications too.
I don't understand what you mean. Please explain. You assert disagreement but
appear to be adding to my list rather than disagreeing with it.
Also note that "specification" is not really a formal document label in our
>> 3. Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP
> I think "experimental standard" is OK in a title too.
Since we aren't even close to 1 April, I'll assume you are not kidding.
How could it possibly be acceptable to have a non-IETF stream assert
And by the way, what /is/ an experimental standard. If it's experimental, it's
not a standard, in our community.
More information about the rfc-interest