[rfc-i] Branding

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Mon Aug 6 15:25:04 PDT 2012


Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> 
>> Note: I'm not saying that IRC is bad here, or that the process was flawed,
>> or anything like that.  The question is, to a casual observer, should
>> those RFCs look exactly the same (aside from the word "INFORMATIONAL" in
>> the title) as a fully consensus-based document?

I think the real importance of a document is *MUCH* harder to decide than
than just looking at track (informational/experimental vs. standards track)
and document maturity level.

There are documents on the standards track which should have better
been published as informational (because of their limited usefulness),
there have documents been published as informational that are heavily used
as "downrevs", and then there are document that incorporates standards
of other SDO, so that the "consensus" of the IETF means more "we prefer
reusing this existing standard rather to rolling our own", and should
not be confused with "this is a genuine product of the IETF consensus
process".


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list