Paul Hoffman wrote:
These are not reasons to make something an Informational RFC. In the minds of developers, there is no difference between Informational and standards-track RFCs. The IETF's differentiation between types of RFCs has always been confusing, but that is not a reason for us to niggle on a particular document.
Understood - thanks for educating me.
If the document has "room for interop problems", and/or security issues, they should be stated so that the sponsoring AD, and the IESG as a whole, can decide whether or not the document is ready to be an RFC, regardless of the type of RFC it will become.
Ok. I'll try to be more specific rsn. cheers Bill
