[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
sm at resistor.net
Tue Sep 27 10:39:08 PDT 2011
At 09:30 27-09-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>While streams do need reasonable independence from each other -- I'm
>relatively less worried about "end run" efforts to bypass the
>standards process than most folks seem to be -- I do think that RFCs
>from non-IETF tracks need to be particularly careful to avoid
>language and labels that create confusion with our actual standards process.
>As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT:
> 1. Claim to follow RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process --
> Revision 3)
> 2. Claim to conform to RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to
> Indicate Requirement Levels)
> 3. Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP
There will be a note in the RFC that the document is "not a candidate
for any level of Internet Standard".
RFC 5782, which came from the ASRG, lists RFC 2119 keywords. An
author might wish to use the key words in an Experimental RFC.
The ASRG charter mentions:
"codification of best current practises in spam management"
The boilerplate change was made to address some of the points you raised.
More information about the rfc-interest