RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Some important things that the FSF folks seem NOT to understand,
> and frankly seem to aggressively NOT want to understand, are:
>
> - Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track.
>
> - Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track.
> So there is no "endorsement" by IETF in publishing such.
A lot more silly fact, these days, is that all the published RFCs
require IESG "endorsement".
That being so, I fully agree with FSF folks against publication of
silly RFCs.
> I support the idea that virtually any document ought to be able
> to be published as an Informational RFC or Experimental RFC.
I do agree with the idea.
And, it was the real practice in good old days when Jon was the
RFC editor.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
