Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> writes: > IMHO, reality trumps wishful thinking. If it is the official > position of the IETF that vendors shouldn't claim compliance with an > Internet Draft, then perhaps the IETF should ensure that useful and > implemented Internet Drafts are (a) published as an RFC
+1 If the process to publish relevant specifications as RFCs was smooth the issues discussed in this thread would be mostly irrelevant. People don't _want_ to reference I-D's for widely implemented protocols. However people will do that when the IETF fail to provide a service to Internet users of publishing stable documents for deployed protocols. Don't blame people for referencing I-D's. Blame the IETF for limiting its own usefulness. And help implements changes in the IETF so that drafts with a relevant community around them gets published as RFCs. Then people will not have a need to cite I-D's any more. > or (b) removed from public presence. That's fine too. It would make it clear that they are temporary working documents. /Simon
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
