Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Friday, 03 October, 2008 14:39 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
<olaf at NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> 
>> The RFC Editor continues to publish STD 1 online, updated
>> daily. And we recently published a "periodic" version as an
>> RFC, over some people's dead bodies, I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure wether you refer to:
> 
> http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/iabmins.2008-04-16.html#3
> 
> But the reference seems relevant to the thread.

This is an interesting conclusion, since this "Informational"
and "Independent Stream" document is identified in RFC 2026 as
_the_ authority on the status of various documents wrt the
standards track.

That interesting conclusion would transition to being fairly
humorous if the IESG, pursuant to its interpretation of RFC
3932, were to ask (or insist) that the RFC Editor include a
statement, either inline or by reference, that asserted that the
IETF had not reviewed the document and disclaimed any knowledge
for its fitness for any purpose.

In deference to a recent note received off list, I will not
explain on-list where this reasoning takes us, nor suggest what
needs to be done about it.  I will not...  I will not...

    john




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