Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am happy to discuss (somewhere?  by direct email?  on the IETF list? 
It is not the role of Gendispatch even if we are abusing it that way.) 
ideas for effective ways to keep internet drafts effective while better 
differentiating them.  I have no good ideas to offer, sorry.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/15/2021 9:27 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Gendisp, etc,
> 	Three comments inline marked [RWG].
> Regards,
> Rod
> 
 >> Joel Halpern wrote
...
>> Note that none of your changes would seem to help much with the most
>> common consufion, namely informational or experimental IETF RFCs being
>> treated as Standards Track RFCs by external promoters.  And no, I do not
>> think the right answer is to remove Informational or Experimental RFCs.
>>
>> And we already see folks (maybe deliberately, maybe accidentally)
>> confusing individual or WG Internet Drafts with RFCs.  Even though any
>> form of reference is completely different.
> 
> [RWG] I have actually seen a rather large open source project propose
> adopting an Individual Draft as a policy as if the IETF had
> published that work as an RFC.  This is a dangeriously bad state
> of affairs and is worth spending some time thinking about how
> the IETF can minimize such mistakes.
> 
...
> 
> [RWG]  Would it be worth creating a better document, or is this
> a solution in need of a problem?
>