Re: Informational vs Something-Else

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

At 07:54 AM 5/5/95 -0400, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>
>having thought about it a while, and understanding the long odds that
>we'll put "RFC" out of our misery, maybe we can introduce one more
>type of RFC and then change the control-structure.  I propose the
>following straw-thing for shredding......
>...

Given the (understandable) reluctance to scrap the RFC series, this seems to
be like a plausible direction.    And I agree that the problem gets worse
with each month that we don't do *something*.

One observation: in parallel with the "end run in progress" and "Really Bad
Idea" categories for Informational, there are the "This is a Known Bad
Idea", "This 'experiment' has been attempted before and succeeded in
demonstrating that this is a lousy idea", and "There is already a Standard
in this area, this isn't it, and the authors offer no reason to believe that
their 'experiment' will offer any improvement" categories of Experimental.
Experimental should get the same treatment as Informational, with the new
class of RFC also being the alternative.

   john