LET'S JUST GO AROUND

[Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU]

On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:27:04 EST, Scott Bradner said:
> > this means that 1814 is *not* binding in any way
> 
> nor are any IETF "standards"
> the IETF states that X is a good idea, an implemented good idea
> or a widly adopted implemented good idea ( proposed, draft and standard)
> for technologies - it can also say "good idea" actually a bit stronger
> than that - for process & polict - that is what a BCP is

Right.  We're an anarchy ;)

My point was that the "proposed standard/standard/BCP" status has more
weight behind it than the mere "informational" status that RFC1814
currently has.  I'm sure that digging through the RFC index, we can
find any number of examples of bad ideas flagged as "informational".

Also, although ARIN has said that they'll follow RFC2050, I don't
see any transitivity to imply 1814 as well...

/Valdis


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970205/cbdb65b7/attachment.sig>