On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 10:38 PM Orr Dunkelman <[email protected]> wrote:
> The story here seems a bit similar - as mentioned before - there is a > proposal to make this a non-IETF RFC (and we are discussing > "informational", but from the outside it looks as approved by the IETF). > This is a very confusing way to describe the situation. The actual situation is as follows: RFCs can be published in multiple Streams. The two relevant ones for the purposes of this discussion are: - The IETF Stream, via IETF Consensus - The Independent Stream, by submission to the Independent Submissions Editor Separately, RFCs can have different statuses, such as Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Standard), and Informational. While the IETF Stream can publish both Standards Track and Informational RFCs, the Independent Stream cannot publish Standards Track RFCs. What is under discussion here is to have the IETF publish an IETF Stream document with Informational status. This would be an IETF RFC, not a non-IETF RFC. As I mentioned in a previous message, at least one person has suggested that *instead* the authors withdraw the document from the WG and ask the Independent Submissions Editor to publish it. That outcome would be a non-IETF Informational RFC, but that is not what we are discussing doing here. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
