[rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
tony at att.com
Tue Mar 4 17:28:51 PST 2014
> From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun at gmail.com
> <mailto:abdussalambaryun at gmail.com>>
> The most important comment for me as start message is that the 1st
> April RFC should be categorised different than IETF standards.
> IMHO, The past RFC style is not a reasonable style of the world or the
> future best practices. In considering our standards business and
> our documents reputation, we should not make jokes with our followers
> only if we are sure all like such jokes.
> I don't want to stop that Style type, but it should be easily
> discriminated by readers/users from other real work/business.
All April 1st RFCs *ARE* categorized different than IETF standards. The
problem is your equating "RFC == IETF Standard".
Repeat this mantra 10,000 times or until you fully grok it: Only some
RFCs are standards; the rest are not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest