Re: Informational vs Something-Else
John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Fri, 05 May 1995 20:03 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09664; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09660; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14030; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09646; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09642; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14024; 5 May 95 16:03 EDT
Received: from ever (ever.jck.com) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-1 #8388) id <01HQ5EKHH28W0000Q7@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Fri, 05 May 1995 16:04:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 16:03:53 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: Informational vs Something-Else
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: Mike O'Dell <mo@uunet.uu.net>
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <01HQ5EKKPJBA0000Q7@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1b15
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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
- Informational vs Something-Else Mike O'Dell
- Re: Informational vs Something-Else kostick
- Re: Informational vs Something-Else John C Klensin
- Re: adding moderated and unmoderated to Experimen… Mike O'Dell
- Re: Informational vs Something-Else Frank Kastenholz
- Re: Informational vs Something-Else Frank Kastenholz