[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Sep 28 06:55:38 PDT 2011


On Sep 27, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 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



3 short remarks:
1. RFC5741 tries to address the practical issues of inter stream confusion.
2. -1 on pont 2 (2119 is of great benefit for any specifications, in and outside the (greater) IETF.
3. Point 3 is about fairness in advertisement and also applies to IETF stream documents that are not a standard or BCP (also a motivation for RFC5741)


no hat.
--Olaf 



________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/











     

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20110928/a2ea4ae2/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list