[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>

Dave CROCKER dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Sep 27 09:44:02 PDT 2011

On 9/27/2011 9:38 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 9:30 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> ...
>> As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT:
>> 2. Claim to conform to RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>> Requirement Levels)
> I disagree; tTspecifications too.

I don't understand what you mean.  Please explain.  You assert disagreement but 
appear to be adding to my list rather than disagreeing with it.

Also note that "specification" is not really a formal document label in our 

>> 3. Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP
> I think "experimental standard" is OK in a title too.

Since we aren't even close to 1 April, I'll assume you are not kidding.

How could it possibly be acceptable to have a non-IETF stream assert 
"experimental standard"?

And by the way, what /is/ an experimental standard.  If it's experimental, it's 
not a standard, in our community.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list