Fwd: Document categories

[Brian E Carpenter]

Well, I think we have the problem that we don't really
know the difference between baked, eaten and boiled
in enough detail to be operationally useful. The running
code proof of that is that most specs stay at 'baked'
status.

I'm not allowed to mention on this list that my preferred
solution is to abolish the distinction between them,
as being useless in practice.

   Brian

hardie at qualcomm.com wrote:
> 
> Howdy,
>         I've sent the draft included below to the drafts
> editor, but since Charlie just brought the issue up again,
> I thought I would go ahead and send it along.  I think
> the question to the group is:  do these categories map
> the ideas _underlying_ our current document series?
> if so, do the current methods of marking the document
> series reflect these categories well enough a) for
>   IETF participants b) for those using IETF output?
> If not, what are the categories underlying the document
> series?
>         I agree with Charlie that this might not be
> the best place to discuss this issue, but I'm not sure
> where else to take the discussion.  If the chairs wish
> to ask that it move elsewhere, I will comply.
>         Also, to reinforce a point made in the draft,
> the names used for these categories (both informal
> and formal) avoid the term RFC not because I am trying
> to comment on the RFC series, but because I want to
> get at the categories below the surface.
>                         regards,
>                                 Ted Hardie
>