Stephen Kent wrote:
>
> I want to second Bob Braden's pithy observation re I-Ds. If they
> make it through the process and become RFCs (including informational
> RFCs) then they clearly merit retention and they achieve it, since
> RFcs are archival....
And I'll make a pithy counter-observation: if they're worth being
referenced in an RFC (as "works-in-progress") then they're worth saving.
IMO, it's not helpful to publish an RFC that points to a
"work-in-progress" as the source for explanatory or background
information about that RFC, if those documents disappear within months
of publication. It makes the RFCs less useful.
In any case, as Scott Bradner informed us, they will soon be available,
so this is officially a moot point.
>...But, I don't want
> to see them cited in some product marketing data sheet, further
> confusing folks who already are confused by the fact that all
> standards are RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards ...
Guess what. It already happens all the time. Vendors try to hype their
latest and greatest to the press, trumpeting the fact that "it's been
submitted to the IETF, and they've already published it as an
Internet-Draft!" This has been going on for years.
Some writers and editors know the difference; others don't; usually
there's someone in the loop who knows better and can fix it before it
gets published.
-pl
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Loshin http://www.loshin.com |
| Internet-Standard.com http://Internet-Standard.com |
| The RFC Books Series http://www.loshin.com/bigbooks.html |
| The Linux Project http://www.thelinuxproject.com |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
