Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On 01/12/2024 17:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I think that the very-big-tent collective "we" have benefitted
>> greatly from the multi-decade ambiguity about the RFC series.
> If the above is the case, why do you think we no longer benefit
> in that way, or what's changed that we're no longer ok with the
> ambiguity?
I think that we've always been uncomfortable internally with the
ambiguity, and I think this comes out loudly when we consider what it means
to publish an RFC (not a standards track one), about a cryptographic protocol
that some do not like.
Externally, the ambiguity borders upon fraud, and it used to propel marketing
people into wanting informational RFCs that they can claim are RFCs, and this
generally leads to more activity than we perhaps have resources to run.
(Does it still propel marketing people? I don't know.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
