On Friday 19 January 2007 16:39, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. One significant change in the new draft is the > addition in Section 7 of "In all cases, new values are assigned only > for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG." This change came at > the request of Cullen Jennings, an AD. In that request, he says "Glad > to talk about pros and cons of this", so I am Cc'ing him on this > thread. > > This change precludes IANA from registering values for IESG-approved > Experimental RFCs, or IESG-approved independently-submitted > Informational RFCs. Normally, "standards track only" is used in > protocols where there is a limited-size namespace, and "RFC only" is > used in places where namespace size is not a concern but there is a > desire for a stable, long-lived reference for every entry in the > namespace. > > Maybe we want "RFC only", not "standards track only", particularly so > that people can create Experimental RFCs and have them be used in an > interoperable fashion as a way of determining whether they should > later be elevated to standards track. > +1 I think this would be much better.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
