Re: [INDEP] Re: Last call on draft-klensin-independent...

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

On 2006-12-27 20:00, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I did note an issue which I think could use more clarification in this document,
> which is whether the Independent Submission track is solely for 
> publication of Informational/Experimental RFCs, or whether it can be also 
> used to publish BCPs or Standards track RFCs.   I would like to see an 
> explicit statement in the document saying that the process only applies to 
> Informational/Experimental documents, and cannot be used for other 
> purposes.

It would do no harm, but since RFC 2026 prescribes that BCPs and
standards track documents must be discussed in the IETF and
approved by the IESG, I don't think there is any possible
ambiguity.

> RFC 3932 Section 1 says that it solely concerns "RFC Editor
> documents to Experimental/ Informational" status.  This implies that
> the process defined in that document can't be used for Standard track 
> documents, but it doesn't preclude other documents from specifying such a 
> process.  Given this, I would like to make sure that 
> draft-klensin-independent isn't construed as widening the applicability of 
> the Independent submission process beyond Informational/Experimental RFC 
> publication.
>
> RFC 3932 Section 4 notes that a boilerplate should be included on the
> document which says: "This RFC is not a candidate for any level of
> Internet Standard", which would again seem to imply exclusion of
> Standards Track documents, and possibly even Experimental documents, which 
> typically include a statement more along these lines:
>
>    This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
>    community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
>
> Since documents published as Experimental can eventually be moved onto the 
> standards track, while they don't specify Internet standards, they remain 
> candidates for consideration. 

I am quite sure there are zero instances of an Experimental RFC
being promoted to standards track without any revision.
At the minimum, it would need revision to to remove those words
saying it isn't on the standards track. So I think this is a
non-problem.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
INDEPENDENT at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent