Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:07:45 +0100

At 13:27 21/08/99 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>In fact it is really quite recent that an an RFC was required to first be 
>an I-D.  Previosly only standards-track (status) RFCs were required to 
>first be I-Ds.

It is my perception that I-Ds today perform a function similar to that
originally intended for the RFC series -- i.e. the timely dissemination of
ideas without delays imposed by a need for some level of "polish".

Am I wrong?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:48:56 -0400

> The REAL problem is that increasing scrutiny of IETF publications
> without changing perception of RFC as Standard will ultimately render
> all RFCs meaningless as long as some RFCs are not standards.  As the
> population of the Internet grows, more and more public examination of
> the IETF is inevitable.

Meaningless to whom? Odd sort of people hypothesised, IMO.

Examination by what criteria? Those presently used?

Charts aren't simplified to ease the desultory reading pleasures of the
non-mariner. I don't wish to see the series(s) acquire neologisms in the
label-space that substitutes for an awareness of content, and the context
of production, whether as a PS, Informational, or Individal Howl.

Cheers,
Eric

p.s. What label would have been appropriate for rfc-16? For rfc-5?
Labels that "mean" more than disambiguating, make blithe choices, as
a modern version of rfc-16 would be, less ... gracefull.