On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:35:31 -0700
Stephan Wenger <[email protected]> wrote:
> The IETF might view it this way. Large parts of the
> (standardization) world does not. One example in my field of work is
> FLUTE, and the surrounding infrastructure of frameworks and FEC
> codes. To the best of my recollection, these specifications were
> originally issued as Experimental RFCs, for reasons of congestion
> control worries. (They are also heavily encumbered, but that was not
> really an issue according to my recollection.) The Experimental
> status did not stop 3GPP and other SDOs to normatively reference
> them, and treat them just like any other IETF RFC. Note that 3GPP
> could NOT do that with a journal publication... I could name more
> examples, both when it comes to referencing SDOs and referenced RFC
> types (including normative references to at least Historic, Obsolete,
> Informational).
This is, I think, the second- or third-most-common topic on the IETF
list: should we rename the document series to prevent that... (#1 is
non-ASCII formats for RFCs; #2 -- by volume of postings, rather than
frequency of discussion -- might be IPR.)
Other than giving up the RFC label for Experimental documents, it's
hard to see what the IETF can do.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
