IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu> Thu, 09 September 2010 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <braden@isi.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 9469B3A6894 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0j-KfOv6kohu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F573A6818 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.168.81] (rtb.isi.edu [128.9.168.81]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o89JXUWi013906; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C893762.9070004@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:37:06 -0700
From: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
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>
In-Reply-To: <4C880A51.9010604@bennett.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu
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 19:33:28 -0000

On 9/8/2010 3:12 PM, 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.

"...guide future work on standards track RFCs" -- yes.

"...historically as more or less binding" -- no.

Bob Braden

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email