On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 6:10 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To EKR's point: > > I agree that they don't, and as indicated in my previous message, this > limitation > just seems to be directed towards keeping this document within the scope > of RSWG. However, the better approach would be to bring this to a venue > with the right scope, which is to say to the streams. > > > Sorry, that's just a backdoor argument without substance. > That's your opinion. Plainly, I disagree.
> We are VERY liberal in how drafts are handled, and the exact oppsite with > RFCs. Readers do not care about streams. > I don't believe that this is true. I agree that there is some confusion about the status of given documents, but I think readers do in fact care about whether documents are IETF Standards Track documents versus, for example, Independent Stream documents. > They get what they get with drafts. But we should pride ourselves on the > RFC series. That is this organization's primary output. > I think this confuses two issues: - What people are entitled to rely upon in terms of document quality - What is appropriate in terms of giving credit I agree that we have minimal quality control for I-Ds when compared to RFCs. However, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to violate the applicable professional standards for giving credit in I-Ds. To take an example from another setting, it's very common for people to publish academic work on preprint servers which don't do much in the way of peer review. I don't think that means that plagiarism in preprints is acceptable. -Ekr > Eliot > > > On 24.06.2026 14:27, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I agree, again, with everything EKR wrote. > > If the goal is to be consistent across streams, adopting this document in > the smallest and least important* of streams and saying that the other > streams can modify and adopt this as they see fit is not the way to achieve > that goal. Have the largest and most important* stream process it first. > > *By least and most important, I am referring to the participation and > readership size, as well as the impact on the industry. Nobody really cares > how “x+y<z” is written in RFC source, nor should they; they care about > things like the best way to use TLS, for example. Taking Eliot’s lens and > thinking of the reader, this document does not belong here. > >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
