Re: [rfc-i] Informational...

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F3B3A078C; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZ7WVtKc-xRf; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F1C3A0794; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A420FF40750; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF7FF40750 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARgRJXfIXNVb for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF74F4074D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id g28so253583qkl.0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ugRHs5UPH6mT2NGFajHDpWfG6H3pKhLMiQq6Q+MMJqc=; b=vacHIZcuMEPLTrsPUqpzYLT5GJHfK5p9X9SEXehLPZjtVoSHPqZi48cffquU69GwLJ 6fNAPBcUDp0PH/Dh2aE1+gtA4QnyYh3LVlYv9MquXsEIwBSAGvUZsESEEd9u228j3OfZ 8677D6abjQ39htbbrfxImxr5wdkwcgHh07kIdgGviFA1LFI20j829KCZsX4K926wiTiF ZL0VlCymBwbIp93/XOz5I4QeFuR/tBYhRTHMOYMY9lR4sNCzFXwbJvXm9NAnfjMqZFuP UyLZ0faCGRbAyUC4nSy+VgRML0war4b/CkePKCGDdJ+gu9krrceNmmJo8wKaASJEW++X 51HQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ugRHs5UPH6mT2NGFajHDpWfG6H3pKhLMiQq6Q+MMJqc=; b=A/HS0VcoLJj/juUjSaOoi8g2i+z4JgYKurbay+2plPzWCqKvmLqnjoA8dMNsXAVWZm YRs7nWFpLV2rGpaH9MbWHOIIz1RU8IyE9aJMEgL9mELHZJ4IYXBjHHE45n/c4gNU6ONs XFG0uk5JFSLwncoPqmsuWQ2X1dZviuV9MfvPK8dkbQnbVSUDECVnuO+elPTEUh0WWGaI k8q/TsOjNNfCGeyQfAi9wPONrnyRMciiLFCcBfiVRr9SvEEJsAsq+5wfu62BR8BuMiVg ohX8xBI2kDvbQ+ez0a8DNyzeq06iQG5M4HhY1xwocmY5HQT+e8j66wPOyMtiFAx4y+rS YBtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311/6xULY6MFaffFCbJPmRSc/WWuNJszfWFFpwUCwRDsx6PFLBz T2n8kbf43M8vk81A2poApKKX9It/p8IY9F57FWM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyuJTlKdsw4d4+LONeAHve3fqnYZGlejvNvv4SzJHQ6hIS+31rUnyRmMt9LskEfzoZcIrEVkzZ53dRTdu2vbes=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:46c1:: with SMTP id t184mr133798qka.192.1591741031543; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <021bfdfc-136c-ea07-e2d5-042d9e429522@nthpermutation.com>
In-Reply-To: <021bfdfc-136c-ea07-e2d5-042d9e429522@nthpermutation.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:17:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2smrFwZy_mAm6c=dnQqD3z8ErmDA8bAzZLh87dpt4Q-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Informational...
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2804789795740733637=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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.

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:24 PM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
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
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest