[saag] Re: [rfc-i] RFCs vs Standards

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

On 11.12.2024 13:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:47 PM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     And this is where we run into problems, because the moment you
>     change that boiler plate, you will devalue the RFC series and
>     create support and interoperability problems as people end up
>     implementing different versions of a specification. And to be
>     clear, IANA is the LEAST of our problems.  The IETF needs a way to
>     have not-ready-for-prime-time DRAFT work without fear ofcreating a
>     mess.
>
> I think this assumes facts not in evidence.

If you are asking for evidence that we have trained the industry to 
believe that drafts are temporary, you should work in or near a 
commercial organization who answers RFPs.  I've seen my share, and they 
rarely include internet-drafts.  If you are asking for evidence that 
this sort of training would break down, that would be asking for 
evidence of an event that has not yet occurred because the boiler plate 
has largely stated the draft nature of drafts from the beginning.  I 
reiterate: a draft can be stable where a specification is not.  We make 
that distinction of whether a specification is stable through our 
publication process.

For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments 
to drafts than I do with drafts not being considered working documents.  
And again, the hint is in the name: draft.

Eliot