Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? Pre-WWW, having publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was certainly useful. However, in today's environment of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues, why would we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > With respect, Brian, I don't think this is simply the failure of journalists > to discern the distinction between Informational RFCs and Standards Track > RFCs. Nobody has made the claim that the IETF produced a standard for > accounting and billing for QoS or anything else. Informational RFCs are a > perfectly fine record of what certain people in the IETF community may be > "envisioning" at a given time, as long as people understand that > "envisioning" is not the same as "requiring," which is basic English literacy. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
