On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:31:37PM -0700, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:46:29 -0400, > tjw ietf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people > > taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"? > > I'm not sure how to interpret it (not even sure if it's a question to > me)...
I suspect Tim meant to type "What is worse: An 'informational' document being used as standard, or people taking a submitted (expired) draft as 'standard'?" To answer, I think which of those is worse depends on the implementation status. I don't have any problem with an informational document to explain the details of something that's already widely deployed, but which for whatever reason can't go through the standards process. Consider RPZ, for example: it's been implemented several times, there's lots and lots of real-world deployment experience. I'd be happy to see an informational RFC describing it; I'd be confident in its stability. Relying on old expired drafts would be disappointing. ECS, though, was published before it was fully cooked, and continuing to iterate and update the drafts would've been better. -- Evan Hunt -- [email protected] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
