Individual submissions and Informational RFCs

In <439A086A.10705@dcrocker.net> Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> writes:

>>
>> I'd suggest the most sensible thing to do is to reclassify both of them
>> as Informational, to document what you might find in some TXT records,
>> publish them, and be done with it.
>
> Yes. This seems like exactly the right choice, since it is what is 
> typically done for documenting
> existing practise that is outside the IETF process.

This really doesn't have anything directly to do with the SPF I-D, but
more about IETF process.

The idea that individual submissions would be Information RFCs was
something I believe for quite a while.  However, a year ago, I
checked, and found quite a few standard track RFCs that were
from individual submissions.

I just checked again, and in the last several months, I found over a
dozen individual submissions and *none* of them were approved as
Informational.  Most were Proposed Standard.  While some of them were
the result of working groups that had dissolved and such, many (most?)
were only reviewed by one or more working groups.

Is this a change/evolution in IETF procedures from days-gone-by?

The ones I found were:

'Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -  UIDPLUS extension' to Proposed Standard
'Media Type Specifications and Registration  Procedures' to BCP
'MIME Type Registration for MPEG-4' to  Proposed Standard
'MIME Type Registrations for 3GPP2  Multimedia files' to Proposed Standard
'Domain Name System Uniform Resource  Identifiers' to Proposed Standard
'Domain Name System (DNS) Security  Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to  Proposed Standard
'Identifiers and Test Vectors for  HMAC-SHA-224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512' to  Proposed Standard
Protocol Action: 'Deprecation of "ip6.int"' to BCP
'Improved Arcfour Modes for the Secure Shell  (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol' to Proposed Standard
'The AES-XCBC-PRF-128 Algorithm for the  Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE)' to Proposed Standard
'Lightweight Directory Access Protocol  (LDAP) schema definitions for X.509 Certificates' to Proposed Standard
'The LDAP entryUUID operational attribute'  to Proposed Standard
'LDAP Proxied Authorization Control' to  Proposed Standard
'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for  new URI Schemes' to BCP

-wayne

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf