[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
touch at isi.edu
Tue Sep 27 10:05:16 PDT 2011
On 9/27/2011 9:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 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.
It got cut off; it should have read:
experimental protocols have specifications too.
> Also note that "specification" is not really a formal document label in
> our community.
Yes, but experimental protocols have to be be able to say "MUST" or
>>> 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
> "experimental standard"?
Individual submissions fall into this category.
By "standard" I mean "specification" as per above - we don't have a good
term for that, granted.
The point is that "experimental protocol description documents" have a
right - if not a responsibility - to refer to RFC 2119.
> And by the way, what /is/ an experimental standard. If it's
> experimental, it's not a standard, in our community.
Yeah, yeah. An experimental protocol specification document.
FWIW, I think of a standard as a document that defines a protocol, and
an Internet Standard as the IETF track that's distinct - don't forget
that not all standards come out of the IETF ;-)
If we want to use a different word (specification, description, etc.),
that's fine. The point overall is that experimental protocols NEED to
cite RFC 2119.
More information about the rfc-interest