Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02 informational RFC

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:47:55 -0700

*> 
  *> Publication IS interpreted as endorsement by many folks, a not unreasonable
  *> interpretation since the RFC editor has always reserved the right to refuse
  *> to publish submissions.
  *> 
  *> Steve
  *> 
  *> 
Unnnhh, Steve, even politicians understand that lack of censure is
not endorsement.

Bob

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:58:13 -0400

Bob,

Every marketing sheet you see cites RFC numbers as proof of IETF
endorsement, whether these numbers refer to standards track, informational,
or experimental documents.  The targets of these data sheets are folks who
don't always know the difference.  Precisely because we (more properly Jon)
have exercised editorial discretion, and because the IETF has procedures
governing RFC publication (e.g., to prevent publiscation of an
informational RFC as a means of circumventing the work of an established
WG), such publication IS a form of endorsement.  If we published anything
people asked us to publish, without exercising judgement, the argument that
publication is not endorsement would be stronger.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:58:13 -0400

Bob,

Steve

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:25:50 -0400

> Unnnhh, Steve, even politicians understand that lack of censure is

IETF isn't bound to waste its time and energy propagating bad ideas.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:25:50 -0400

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:43:15 -0400

I cannot agree with Steve more.  Not only have I seen companies pushing 
their pet Informational RFCs as "standards", but I've also seen RFPs come 
in with informational RFCs listed in the requirements, usually as the 
result of a successful marketing effort by the authors of the informational 
RFCs in question.

Over the years, we've occasionally discussed creating new document 
designations for Informational and Experimental documents.  Well, 
draft-zigmond-tv-url clearly demonstrates the need for a separate INF 
series for Informational documents and EXP for experimental, leaving the 
RFCs for the standards track.

I highly doubt we would be having this debate over publication of 
draft-zigmond as INF xxxx, rather than RFC xxxx, since it would be 
immediately clear to all what the document's status is.

Cheers,
Andy

-------

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:43:15 -0400

Cheers,
Andy

-------