Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132F91A9061 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 09:06:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ViORca3J3Y0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 09:06:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E056C1A9067 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 09:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 59973 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2014 17:06:31 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2014 17:06:31 -0000
Date: 6 Dec 2014 17:06:11 -0000
Message-ID: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
In-Reply-To: <E8A28A69-D7F0-4555-9A18-3F1B478BDD8C@cisco.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UbxB8ofsAFT6QDZ4KwaL-aGUKBc
Cc: stbryant@cisco.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:06:42 -0000

In article <E8A28A69-D7F0-4555-9A18-3F1B478BDD8C@cisco.com> you write:
>If it is just for IETF purposes it could be added to the downref list without being reclassified.

I have to agree with John K.  Pick any definition of standard you
want, stable, interoperable, multiple implementations, whatever, and
RFC 20 certainly fits as well as anything else we call a standard.

Just mark it as a standard and be done with it.  Because that's
what it is.

R's,
John

PS: Thought experiment: Let's say we made RFC 20 a full standard.
What Bad Things will happen?