Re: [rfc-i] Informational...

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/9/2020 6:17 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Mike,
>
> You left off what's probably the most common category, an IETF WG 
> consensus document that doesn't contain protocol conformance language 
> (e.g. architecture, framework, overall requirements, etc.), thus is 
> not on the standards track.

What - not "Other; Uncategorized"?

Seriously though - I agree.   I'm wondering if there might be 2-4 
categories we could agree on to break these down.  Or maybe just one?

Working Group Explanatory Material?


>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:24 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi -
>
>     I was looking at a document that's currently on last call for the
>     third
>     time in the transport area with a proposed status of "Informational".
>     After reading it, I was wondering why it was being published by the
>     Transport area, as opposed to being an architectural discussion by
>     the
>     IAB or even as a product of the IRTF?  In any event, it got me
>     thinking
>     about the Informational category of documents and wondering what
>     would
>     happen if we added a sub-header or sub-category for documents
>     published
>     under this banner - here's a strawman list:
>
>     IAB Architectural Note - applied to IAB consensus documents
>     IAB Policy Note -  ditto
>     IESG Policy Note - applied to IESG consensus documents
>     Community Policy Note - applied to community consensus documents
>     wherever originated
>     Technical Cross Publication - previously published documents where
>     the
>     IETF will not gain change control
>     IRTF Pure Research
>     IRTF Applied Research
>     IETF Path Not Taken (applied to documents that weren't accepted as WG
>     items, but might have been  viable alternatives ISE or Area Director
>     sponsored)
>     Individual Technical Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Policy Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Architectural Proposal or Opinion
>     Individual Other
>     (IAB/IESG/IRTF/IETF) Workshop Report
>     Business Report
>     Other; Uncategorized.
>
>     The Informational group is the least homogeneous of any of the
>     publication categories, and possible the one least understood by the
>     non-IETF crowd as to its role.  Perhaps providing some sub-text might
>     improve things slightly.
>
>     This is a discussion topic - not so much a baked proposal.
>
>     Enjoy - Mike
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rfc-interest mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest