Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@bennett.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D193A6A6F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SOjhPm4h6o3p for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from schemailmta07.cingularme.com (schemailmta07.cingularme.com [209.183.37.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08A63A6768 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.30.126] (really [172.16.130.170]) by schemailmta07.cingularme.com (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20100909092934.JILO7836.schemailmta07.cingularme.com@[10.33.30.126]>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:29:34 -0500
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C817C6F.8070303@gmail.com> <4C818963.4090106@bennett.com> <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com> <0ECC03C0-63B9-401F-B395-ACFBDF427296@gmail.com> <7F4C5F55-E722-4DF4-8E84-8D25628C55A3@standardstrack.com> <038B62A2-6B53-4FC2-8BDD-E1C9D6BDFB82@bbn.com> <4C880393.2070701@gmail.com> <4C880A51.9010604@bennett.com> <D150A971-9B4E-4830-A692-91B041DBCF08@cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <7F3E4D6E-B344-4542-8506-30291D20ED61@bennett.com>
From: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
To: Kevin Fall <kfall@cs.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <D150A971-9B4E-4830-A692-91B041DBCF08@cs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (7B500)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B500)
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:28:29 -0700
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=XnaXYMQbXk8A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=qK-SSvGFt-5FKDIvjXUA:9 a=laMp0_hLYMKiCfWxUfUA:7 a=D1Fads7pe2GYgXZRksyAeRhjhp8A:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:29:09 -0000

That's probably because RFC 2549 was the transitional document.


Richard Bennett


On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Fall <kfall@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 8, 2010, at Sep 83:12 PMPDT, Richard Bennett wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture models are published as Informational when they're clearly not in the same level of authority as most Informational RFCs. An architecture document is meant to guide future work on standards track RFCs, and has been regarded historically as more or less binding.
>> 
>> The easy fix is to create an "Architectural" category within the standards track. There's obviously a big difference between RFC 2475 and IP for Avian Carriers.
>> 
> 
> But not so obvious between 'IP for Avian Carriers' and RFC4838...  :)
> 
> - K