Re: An Internet Draft as reference material

[RJ Atkinson]

At 15:44 22/09/00, Pete Loshin wrote:

>IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a
>"work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background
>information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months
>of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful.

Do such RFCs actually exist ?   
Do you have a specific example ?  I don't know of any.

        I have always heard that the RFC Editor will not publish
any document as an RFC if it tries to reference an Internet-Draft.


>Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their
>latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been
>submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an
>Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years.

        We don't need to make the situation worse than it is.
I agree with Steve Kent and Bob Braden.  If folks don't want
an RFC, they can always put their document out as a company
Technical Report, on the web, and/or via many other methods.

Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]