Subject: [Rfcplusplus] A related draft that I never posted

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:12:19 -0400

I wrote a draft about this topic some while ago (you can see the date
in the attached file), but never posted it because I wanted to discuss
it with a couple of IAB members first.  That never happened because we
never found the time to get together and talk about it -- that doesn't
matter, because we're all talking about it now.  So I thought I'd post
it here, rather than in the I-D repository for now, to kick off some
discussion.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:16:34 -0400

I'm thinking that posts with attachments might get held for
moderation, so I'm re-sending this with the "attachment" pasted in
instead.

Barry

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network Working Group                                           B. Leiba
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Best Current Practice                    April 06, 2016
Expires: October 06, 2016

              RFCs Are Only for Standards Track Documents
                  draft-leiba-rfc-for-stdstrk-only-00

Abstract

   Many people are unaware of differences among RFCs of differing
   document status and in different streams, and it is common for people
   to consider all RFCs to be "standards" at some level.  This document
   addresses this by reserving future RFCs for Standards Track and Best
   Current Practice documents, and by defining new prefixes for
   documents with other status and in non-IETF publication streams.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 06, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

Leiba                   Expires October 06, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       RFCs Only for Standards Track            April 2016

   Many people are unaware of differences among RFCs of differing
   document status and in different streams, and it is common for people
   to consider all RFCs to be "standards" at some level.  This document
   addresses this by reserving future RFCs for Standards Track and Best
   Current Practice documents, and by defining new prefixes for
   documents with other status and in non-IETF publication streams.
   RFCs published prior to this document are not affected in any way; in
   particular, there will not be any renaming or renumbering of earlier
   RFCs.

2.  RFCs and New Series Designations

   As of the publication of this document, "RFC" will be reserved only
   for IETF stream publications in the Standards Track and the BCP (Best
   Current Practice) series.
   Example: RFC 6789

   [[Open question: Should we abandon "RFC" altogether and use something
   like "STX", or whatever?  Pro: It separates new stuff under this plan
   entirely from the old stuff.  Con: we give up the branding that's
   already there.  My sense is no, we should stick with RFC.  Old RFCs
   will, in any case, continue to have the problem, and we certainly
   don't want to try to re-number the old RFCs.  ]]

   Documents in the IETF stream with Informational status will be
   designated by "INFO".
   Example: INFO 6789

   Documents in the IETF stream with Experimental status will be
   designated by "EXP".
   Example: EXP 6789

   Documents in the IETF stream that are moved to Historic status will
   retain their original designation.  Documents in the IETF stream that
   are initially published with Historic status will be designated by
   "INFO".

   [[Open question: Is this right?  I don't think we need to try to
   distinguish Historic documents with its own prefix, and it would lead
   to the question of whether we renumber a document when it moves to
   Historic.  I think we don't want to go there.  ]]

   Documents in the IRTF stream will be designated by "IRTF".
   Example: IRTF 6789

   Documents in the IAB stream will be designated by "IAB".
   Example: IAB 6789

   Documents in the Independent stream will be designated by "IND".
   Example: IND 6789

3.  IANA Considerations

Leiba                   Expires October 06, 2016                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       RFCs Only for Standards Track            April 2016

   There are no IANA considerations for this document.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document is purely procedural, and there are no related security
   considerations.

5.  References

Author's Address

   Barry Leiba
   Huawei Technologies

   Phone: +1 646 827 0648
   Email: [email-masked]
   URI:   http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

Leiba                   Expires October 06, 2016                [Page 3]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------