Subject: RE: Intended category of I-Ds

From: Cameron Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:41:35 -0800

I agree.  A potentially incorrect target category  is
more useful during the review stage than no category 
at all.

As an editor of one ID, I struggled with the benefit of
listing a category, versus the concern that the mysterious 
IETF editors might throw it back for "non-conformance".

I've since gathered that there is considerable freedom
here, but I think some explicit comments or addition to
the template would make it a little easier for newbies 
like me.

Cameron Young
INETCO Systems Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:33 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Intended category of I-Ds

I believe the I-D guidelines should be revised to recommend
authors include a statement indicating which RFC category the
I-D is intended to be published in.  This allows the reviewer
to apply determine a level of scrutity based upon the intended
category.

I've come a cross a number of WG I-Ds which did not indicate
their intended category AND the WG I-D didn't provide appropriate
clarification.  (Yes, I've brought this to the attention of
the WG chairs and I-D authors).

Comments?

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 12:20:10 -0800

>the WG chairs and I-D authors).

I meant:

I've come a cross a number of WG I-Ds which did not indicate
their intended category AND the WG CHARTER didn't provide
appropriate clarification.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 12:20:10 -0800

I meant: