Subject: RE: [newtrk] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-rosenberg-mankin-newtrk-rfc-00.txt

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:40:40 -0800

John,

>I also agree with your summary.  I'd also like to see some text to make
>it clear that something IS NOT an IETF produced/reviewed document.

Good point!  This would be good to do too.

Thanks,
Bob

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:37:13 +0200

Bob,

> I think it is worth looking at ways of making clearer that an RFC is 
> produced by the IETF.  For example:
> 
>    s/Network Working Group/Internet Engineering Task Force/
>    s/Internet standards track protocol/IETF Internet standards track protocol/
>    s/Standards Track/IETF Standards Track/
> 
> I think the broader issues relating to what is a standard are better dealt 
> with the ISD approach.

John

.

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:43:07 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I'd also like to see some text to make it clear that something IS
> NOT an IETF produced/reviewed document.

John-

BCP92 specifies the following boilerplate added to independent
submissions.  Doesn't this make it clear "that something IS NOT an
IETF produced/reviewed document"?

--aaron

=====================

4.  Standard IESG Note

   One of the following IESG notes will be sent to the RFC Editor for
   all documents, with a request for placement either in or
   immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section of the
   finished RFC, unless the IESG decides otherwise:

   1. For documents that specify a protocol or other technology, and
      that have been considered in the IETF at one time:

      The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF,
      and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or
      a published IETF work.  This RFC is not a candidate for any
      level of Internet Standard.  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of
      the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes
      that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for
      such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate
      interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen
      to publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of this RFC
      should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
      implementation and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more
      information.

   2. For documents that specify a protocol or similar technology and
      are independent of the IETF process:

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document
      at its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise
      caution in evaluating its value for implementation and
      deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

   3. For documents that do not specify a protocol or similar
      technology:

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      the IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based
      on IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF
      work.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
      discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

.