Informational vs Something-Else

[Mike O'Dell <[e-mail]>]

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......

	(1) Create a new class of RFC called something like

		"Completely Random Application or Protocol"

	(2) Change the rules for "Informational" so that the IESG has
		absolute right of refusal of publishing something as
		Informational.  One really good reason to do so is
		that we believe and end-run is in progress, or that
		what is proposed is a Really Bad Idea.  Informational
		now carries the weight that the IESG believes the
		information is worth knowing.

	(3) Now allow the author a choice.  He can try for
		Informational, which means the IESG assents that
		publishing it isn't a Bad Idea, or as a venue of
		last resort, he can publish as this new class of RFC.

	(4) We make a BIG effort to publicize the creation of this new
		*unmoderated* class, getting things placed in various
		network and computing rags explaining the
		classifications and why it's important not to be
		bamboozled. We could probably get some important
		"editorial page" ink - thinking of Metcalf, etc,
		especially if we made specific phone calls to editors
		raising our concerns and helping them get the info
		right.  I suspect that they don't understand the
		importance and I know from experience, unless you work
		with them directly, the do not have the time to go
		find things to read (like our documents outlining
		the classifications).  Even if we had a set-piece
		press release that went out over the names of the 
		IETF Chair and the RFC Editor, and good
		"for-more-info" contacts, it might get things rolling.
		might even recast it as a "letter to the editor". 
		I'm pretty sure it would get included then.

so give it some thought.

	-mo