Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 188, Issue 3

John,

Sure, sounds good. I think Mike would appreciate a proposed Informational
taxonomy.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 8:52 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, June 11, 2020 15:08:06 -0400
>  "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > That sounds good, or, if you want to be more wordy, "any RFC
> > published by an IETF Working Group that is not a
> > standards-track or Experimental specification."
>
> Andy,
>
> (I knew I should continue to stay away from this list)
>
> Anything along the lines of "anything that is not one of those
> is one of these" is looking for trouble.
>
> First, while we have lumped BCP documents in with standards
> track for many purposes in the last several years, RFC 2026 is
> extremely clear that BCP documents are not standards track ones.
> Second, while it it isn't clear to me just how we would go about
> doing it if we wanted to (perhaps an opportunity for another
> long "who has the authority" thread in rfc-future), one could
> imagine another full, numbered, category along the lines of the
> last "FYI" series or perhaps similar to the ISO technical report
> category (IIR, "Type 3"0 which was popularly known as a
> "substandard".
>
> While I see these Informational subcategories as a good idea, I
> think it would be equally, or more, useful to break BCP up (or,
> I suppose, create subcategories) to distinguish between IETF
> procedural documents and documents about practices on the
> Internet and the use of protocols.  It might even be useful to
> further divide the latter between descriptions of deployed
> configurations, operational practices, etc., that have worked
> out well (after all, "Current Practices") and more aspirational
> IETF recommendations about what people should be doing (with or
> without advice about what happens if they don't).  Most of the
> latter, of course, should probably be seen as Applicability
> Statements and hence actually standards track.
>
> best,
>    john
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>