Jim Fenton wrote: > I'm saying (recognizing this is well outside the scope of the working > group) that IETF has a problem in that it publishes informational, > experimental, and historic RFCs and many people outside IETF immediately > think anything with an RFC number is an "IETF standard". That dilutes > the value of the IETF standards process and (talking like a marketing > person) the IETF "brand".
Complaints about this date back at least 15 years. The IETF has managed to muddle along in spite of the dilution. Small observation: Some people pay attention to the details of standardization and some don't. Someone who thinks SPF is a 'standard' is probably not the target of formal standards effort, but that does not make formal standardization a wasted effort. > Referring back to my message, I'm advocating that if we do anything, we > move to Draft Standard, and advocating that we not do another spin at > Proposed Standard. So are we agreeing? I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the specification at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're discussing for the -bis effort.) Have you heard otherwise? > But I feel that if we go > directly to DS, the constraints in that process will help assure that > doesn't happen. Yup. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
