Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 17:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Currently, drafts are submitted on the assumption that they'll end up
> describing internet standards. If you grant permission for me to modify
> RFC 2821 to describe my internal messaging system but require me to tell
> the IETF that I'm doing so, it's likely to result in a somewhat larger
> number of submissions. Many of the submissions would be entirely
> inappropriate in the context of internet standards.

To drill down further into your hypothetical, I would think that the document 
would possibly be very relevant to the IETF since:
 1) the IETF has been working on instant messaging for a while, and 
 2) SMTP includes a deprecated and rarely-implemented instant messaging feature (SEND, SAML, SOML; see rfc821 section 3.4).

> is there any reason why I
> should not be able to modify RFCs in order to document local protocols
> that are not intended for wider use?

Your insights in solving your local problem may be more useful than you might 
think to the broader community.

						- Bill

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg