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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue Sep 27 11:55:04 PDT 2011

On 9/27/2011 11:41 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
> I agree with others that "experimental standard" is a contradiction. "Experimental protocol specification" is fine.
> When I was on the IESG, there were a couple of discussions regarding
> whether non-standards track documents could use the RFC2119 keywords
> (SHOULD, MUST, and so on). Each time there was clear or even unanimous
> agreement that this is fine, and that the words are interpreted in the
> context. Thus if an experimental protocol says "MUST do<something>",
> then because the protocol is experimental then you don't have to
> actually do anything related to that protocol and you don't have to
> implement the protocol at all; However, if you implement the
> (experimental) protocol, then whatever that (experimental) spec has as a
> MUST is something that you MUST do if you want to claim that you have an
> implementation of that particular protocol.

FWIW, that's true for Internet Standards too ;-)

Not all IETF Standards are "MUST implement".

PS - if we're going to be nitpicky about "standard", then let's call it 
an IETF Standard. There are a LOT of other standards out there - some 
de-facto, some by other organizations.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list