Re: Informational vs Something-Else

kostick@qsun.ho.att.com Fri, 05 May 1995 14:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04034; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04030; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07369; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab04023; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04019; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from gw1.att.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07364; 5 May 95 10:39 EDT
Received: from qsun.ho.att.com by ig1.att.att.com id AA24557; Fri, 5 May 95 10:39:54 EDT
Received: by qsun.ho.att.com (4.1/EMS-1.1.1 SunOS) id AA03526; Fri, 5 May 95 10:39:31 EDT
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 10:39:31 -0400
Message-Id: <9505051439.AA03526@qsun.ho.att.com>
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: kostick@qsun.ho.att.com
To: Mike O'Dell <mo@uunet.uu.net>
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Informational vs Something-Else

this issue has "irked" me for some time,
especially when I've seen enterprise-specific
mibs come out as RFCs.

can't we do something simple like issuing
IFCs or "Information for Comment" for 
the non-moderated documents -- or--

calling the docs IRFCs for
Informational RFCs

Deirdre
kostick@qsun.att.com