Hi, all,
> On Dec 11, 2024, at 7:33 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> You and I may be thinking along the same lines. The issue for me is whether
> or not a work is in its terminal state. I was thinking the easiest way to do
> this was to have an author click a button to shift the work from
> "internet-draft" to something like "deadwood". So
> draft-lear-widget-update-protocol-23 would become
> deadwood-lear-widget-update-protocol, and as you wrote below, appropriate
> boiler plate is applied. Something along the following lines:
>
> “This document was previously an Internet-Draft, was not accepted for
> publication as an RFC, and has not been shown to meet any quality standard.
> Any specification contained herein may not be suitable for deployment. It
> will not be updated, no errata can be filed against it, and there may be
> intellectual property risks associated with implementations. It is not
> suitable as a normative reference for a standard.”
>
Can we include:
- it’s a draft, not an RFC, like it say
- has not been shown NOT to not meet any quality standard either
- is still REALLY a draft, not an RFC, no seriously
- despite the lack of review, it COULD be just fine for deployment too
- even though it’s been dropped by the author, it COULD be revived at
any time by any one, including the author
- again, it’s not an RFC, like we told you
- standards probably will cite it non-normatively, often in a manner
that questions the very distinction between normative and non-normative
- oh, yeah, no back-sies!
Seriously, though - it’s a draft that never got an RFC number. If that’s not
enough to explain it isn’t an RFC, nothing is.
Drafts already have more than enough needed warning.
Joe
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
