Re: Informational vs Something-Else

[Frank Kastenholz <[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......

So RFC means "has some technical merit as determined by the IESG,
etc" while CRAP doesn't?

My only real concern is that we may (I say may!) be underestimating
the scope of the problem. It's not that all documents named RFCxxxx
are presumed to be Internet Standards but rather that all documents
which come out of the IETF (of which, now, there are only RFCxxxx
documents) are presumed to be standards. But we will not know this
without trying it (some phrase about 'running code' comes to mind
here :-), but being aware that it might happen is better than being
blindsided by it, I suppose.


--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln