On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Eric, > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > >> I would offer RFC 5211 is PRECISELY the kind of RFC the IETF should NOT be >> publishing! I can see the press release now: "IETF publishes IPv6 >> transition plan." NO ONE OUTSIDE THE IETF has a clue the RFC Editor is NOT >> the IETF. "RFC = IETF" is the *reality*, no matter how much we say it is >> not. > > The IETF did not publish it, the RFC-Editor published it. > >> For that matter, would the world notice if the press release made the >> accurate statement, "The RFC Editor, who publishes all IETF protocols, >> publishes IPv6 transition plan"? What rational person would not make the >> leap that the IETF published the document? > > Anyone who actually read the document. If we are going to worry about what > people think who don't read our documents, we should stop now.
Also see RFC 5741 work on which was inspired on exactly this sort of discussion. Quoting from that: For non-IETF stream documents, a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741." For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added for BCP and Standards Track documents: "Further information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741 ." --Olaf ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf