Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Wed try very hard to make it clear to folks that there is a difference 
> between standards track documents and non-standards track documents. 
> Independent Stream documents are not standards track documents.

And I agree that there is an issue of the community not distinguishing 
among standards-track, informational, and experimental documents. But 
that's a separable problem that is, in my opinion, of much smaller 
consequence.

I assert that the distinction between these classes of documents is 
much, much smaller than the distinction between IETF-reviewed documents 
and independent stream documents.


> Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this 
> is not a change in practice.  This is the practice we have had for 
> more than the last 15 years.  If, for Independent Submissions, it is 
> that big a problem, I would expect ot have heard of it.

Perhaps I'm just unclear on the frequency of independent submissions -- 
but can you find me an RFC that came from a source other than the IETF 
that does not include a prominent note indicating that fact?

I'm under the distinct impression that historical practice tagged all 
(or almost all) such documents with a prominent note. The proposed 
procedure tries to make this an extreme exception, not the norm.

/a