PWG Mail Archive: PWG> Standards Track vs. Informational (IPP)

PWG> Standards Track vs. Informational (IPP)

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:42:46 -0400

Although there is probably no harm... I don't see what is gained by
Informational RFC's resulting from a year + effort of a chartered IETF =
working
group and their associated development teams!

...there are now two special sub-series within the RFCs: FYIs and =
STDs.
The For Your Information RFC sub-series was created to document overvie=
ws and
topics which are introductory. Frequently, FYIs are
created by groups within the IETF User Services Area. The STD RFC sub-s=
eries
was created to identify those RFCs which do in fact specify Internet
standards.

Do we consider IPP an OVERVIEW or an INTRODUCTION?!

...Every RFC, including FYIs and STDs, have an RFC number by which =
they
are indexed and by which they can be retrieved.

OK... so we get our picture in the catalog.

How many IETF standards track architectures were perfect out of the sho=
ot or
even as well thought out and as interoperable as the first servings of =
IPP?

Go Informational if it makes for comfort... but unless something exciti=
ng
happens in Chicago, I'm all for supporting a great PWG standard that th=
e
PWG is free to evolve in an efficient and timely manner.

Harry Lewis
=