On Sep 8, 2010, at Sep 83:12 PMPDT, Richard Bennett wrote: > It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture models are > published as Informational when they're clearly not in the same level of > authority as most Informational RFCs. An architecture document is meant to > guide future work on standards track RFCs, and has been regarded historically > as more or less binding. > > The easy fix is to create an "Architectural" category within the standards > track. There's obviously a big difference between RFC 2475 and IP for Avian > Carriers. >
But not so obvious between 'IP for Avian Carriers' and RFC4838... :) - K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
