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

[Bernard Aboba <aboba at internaut.com>]

> Certainly everyone understands this, and I thought that 2026 already
> stated it.  Whatever. It is not clear that this is the correct place
> for defining legal mappings of document streams onto RFC categories,
> but as a pragmatic matter, fine, let's make sure draft-klensin is
> explicit about what categories are allowed.

My concern in part derives from recent Independent Submissions which, 
while specified as Informational Status, modify Standards Track 
documents, or request the allocation of IANA parameters reserved for 
Standards Action or IETF Consensus.  This does not appear to be precluded 
by this document, yet if allowed to proceed would circumvent RFC 2026. 

> 
>   *> 
>   *> 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 
> 
> Wow!! You have missed a calling as a lawyer!! Or ARE you a lawyer?
> That implication seems far-fetched to me, and clearly was not intended.


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