Re: netwrk stuff

[Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> RFCs are published as Informational, Proposed Standard or  
> Experimental. This represents the confidence level the IETF/IESG  
> has at the moment of publication. Irrespective of I/PS/E, a  
> document may move to Standard (which replaces Draft Standard and  
> Internet Standard) or Historic if its implementation and deployment  
> warrant this. The IESG publishes a short note explaining the  
> rationale when changing designations.

Seems mostly reasonable.

I do believe that there is value in the BCP status, and would add it  
to the above. PS presumes that we are testing something, like a  
protocol, while BCP presumes that we are stating something that is  
believed to be true now but might become untrue and need to be  
reconsidered in the future, like a policy.

I would also argue in favor of the "Historic" status. Documents are  
rarely published as historic, although it has happened (RFC 1716).  
But they should be allowed to become historic at some future date.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf