On 02-Dec-24 12:43, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 1 Dec 2024, at 21:50, Jay Daley wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024, at 08:15, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's nothing new about Informational RFCs that are a (re)publication
of an external specification. That was covered in RFC 2026 section 4.2.2:
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
It certainly was a bit ambiguous when you couldn't tell from the text of
the RFC whether it was that kind of Informational or the normal kind that
originated in the IETF. But that changed when the Independent RFC series
was formalized.
Except that we now have two very different meanings for 'informational' that we
only distinguish in the boilerplate, making it hard to spot - 'IETF-wide
consensus informational' and ’Independent, no consensus, informational'.
There are also IRTF consensus informational documents (e.g., RFC 9591) and IRTF
non-consensus informational documents (e.g., RFC 9382), with two more variants
of the boilerplate.
Colin
That makes it even more the case that people need to read the boilerplate.
But I really doubt that changing the name from "Informational" to
"REALLY Informational" or whatever would make the slightest difference.
We could send a free copy of RFC 1796 along with each RFC, and that
wouldn't make any difference either.
It's been like for so long that, IMHO, nobody should lose sleep over it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
