Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Aug 7 08:01:31 PDT 2012
On 8/6/12 3:25 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.
I agree, thought I think it is harder because "importance" is largely
subjective to the reader.
> 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
That is something you should take up with the IESG or on the IETF
discussion list, particularly if you have a suggestion for how this
might be fixed. The issues you are raising about track for past,
present, and future documents falls in their purview.
More information about the rfc-interest