[rfc-i] what about draft-peterson-informational-normativity ?
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Aug 20 14:43:48 PDT 2014
On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> And that's my challenge - I want a consistent definition for the Series
> that has a longer shelf-life than 2 years. I may be asking for a pony,
> here, but I do think it's useful for more than just the RFC Editor.
You are asking for a pony. The earlier discussions ended up counting angels on a pin. "What do you mean 'needs to be'?" "But in an Informational document, this means something different." "What if my document changes from Experimental to standards track?"
This is probably a waste of lots of people's time. The fact that it was ignored for 8 years and no one had any problems with the RFCs in that time is testament to the lack of need for the document.
More information about the rfc-interest