[rfc-i] Draft Review request - Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying Part I

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 08:57:52 PST 2010

29.11.2010 18:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 6:17 PM +0200 11/29/10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Here is a citation from RFC 2026:
>>>   Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
>>>     subseries of the RFC series [4].  When a specification has been
>>>     adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
>>>     "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
>>>     series. (see section 4.1.3)
>>>     Some RFCs standardize the results of community deliberations about
>>>     statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to
>>>     perform some operations or IETF process function.  These RFCs form
>>>     the specification has been adopted as a BCP, it is given the
>>>     additional label "BCPxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place
>>>     in the RFC series. (see section 5)
>>>     Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Internet
>>>     should or will become Internet Standards or BCPs.  Such non-standards
>>>     track specifications are not subject to the rules for Internet
>>>     standardization.  Non-standards track specifications may be published
>>>     directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" RFCs at the discretion
>>>     of the RFC Editor in consultation with the IESG (see section 4.2).
>> Here we have an exhaustive list of RFC categories.
> Er, no we don't. There is also "no category given", which is implied by the fact that no one ever gave the hundreds of early RFCs a category. I see nothing in RFC 2026 that says, or even implies what you say.
>> There is no mention of any others
>> categories (except 'Historic') of RFC. I hope I have answered your question.
> You have indeed: you interpret RFC 2026 different that the rest of the IETF community has for well over a decade.
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
Hello all,

Maybe there is enough discussions to conclude the topic. I agree that
early RFCs should not be classified.

I will not insist on making my drafts RFCs any kind.

Thank you for your time and discussion.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list