IETF Logo Mail Archive

The Evils of Informational RFC's

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Wed, 08 September 2010 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 D6A6B3A67B2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.193, 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 H6lVMDTEzQ9j for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19003A672E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=UgwS/gN8l7VasU3UQWGoVRNI1PNRnHsBk333CXCT5Uy5+cGJ081YSZPCEfPmA4iAXw5R9cp+IhDQiKbxSNxWA0AnWA5zCRZfJftJ5CPuWR0r+QZLzZOy5izYNdWg+Wsx;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.194]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1OtM85-0004vv-Kq for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:00:05 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: The Evils of Informational RFC's
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C818963.4090106@bennett.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:03:27 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com>
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>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:03:05 -0000

Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's?  Pre-WWW, having publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was certainly useful.  However, in today's environment of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues, why would we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?

On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:

> With respect, Brian, I don't think this is simply the failure of journalists to discern the distinction between Informational RFCs and Standards Track RFCs. Nobody has made the claim that the IETF produced a standard for accounting and billing for QoS or anything else. Informational RFCs are a perfectly fine record of what certain people in the IETF community may be "envisioning" at a given time, as long as people understand that "envisioning" is not the same as "requiring," which is basic English literacy.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status