Info/exptl RFCs

[RJ Atkinson]

On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 14:32 America/Montreal, Theodore Ts'o 
wrote:
> Perhaps we need to seriously reconsider why we need non-IETF
> informational RFC's.  On the one hand, I believe that if we do have
> them, the IESG MUST give them the same level of review as other IETF
> documents, or else they will be used as an end-run around the
> standards process.  On the other hand, I occasionally hear claims that
> the added burden on the IESG is significant.  If this is true, then
> perhaps we should simply not allow non-IETF, inidividual informational
> RFC's, or at least give them a very, very, very, low priority.

Other options include at least having some other group than IESG
(details TBD) handle that sort of review but continuing to have
that sort of pre-publication review.

Also, please consider the routine publication of Experimental RFCs
by the IRTF, publication of Informational RFCs by IAB (using a
slightly different publication path), etcetera.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com