On 7/12/11 2:06 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >> On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal, >>> for a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I >>> do question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general >>> mechanism. >> >> How about publishing it on the standards track but not as a general >> mechanism (i.e., why not clarify when it is and is not appropriate)? > > How about publishing as Informational? > > RFC 2026 says: > > 4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK > > Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve > through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track". > These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and > "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1. > > If there is no strong consensus and commitment to work the document > along the standards track up to full standard, then it shouldn't > be on the standards track at all.
Who said there isn't strong consensus and commitment to work the document along the standards track? The only statement I've seen is that it's not a generic solution for all metadata problems. > For documents where the only purpose of publishing it is only to obtain > an rfc number for it, but otherwise just describe "this is how others > have solved a particular problem before" and let vendors and implementors > wiggle out interop, then Informational is quite appropriate. I see no reason to make those assumptions here. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
