IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

Kevin Fall <kfall@cs.berkeley.edu> Thu, 09 September 2010 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <kfall@cs.berkeley.edu>
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 7D8593A6839 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 y4rOQZp7h82b for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.60.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027B13A67B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] ([117.206.192.35]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway0.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (8.14.4/8.13.5) with ESMTP id o892YBUu014843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Kevin Fall <kfall@cs.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C880A51.9010604@bennett.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:34:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D150A971-9B4E-4830-A692-91B041DBCF08@cs.berkeley.edu>
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>
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:14:40 -0700
Cc: 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 02:33:53 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email