[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Sep 27 17:09:04 PDT 2011
> As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT:
> 1. Claim to follow RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process --
> Revision 3)
More precisely - must not claim to be the result of the IETF
process [BCP9]. IRTF documents are supposed to be the result of
the IRTF process, which is in fact [BCP8].
But they may claim to have followed a consensus process similar
to the IETF process, even though [BCP8] specifically does not
require consensus: "Since the products are research results, not
Internet standards, consensus of the group is not required."
The boilerplate variants suggested in [RFC4741] seem quite
adequate to me.
> 2. Claim to conform to RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to
> Indicate Requirement Levels)
I don't see why not. Many non-IETF documents claim to conform to
this; they are quite useful definitions for any technical
specification, whatever its origin or status.
> 3. Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP
I agree. I don't see any case in which "experimental
specification" doesn't make more sense than "experimental
standard" anyway, and BCP is a term of art in an RFC.
However, the draft in question specifically says "Best Practise"
which is (a) a solecism and (b) not the same as "BCP".
More information about the rfc-interest