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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
