[rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

Tony Hansen 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.

     Tony Hansen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140304/5528d737/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list