Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-shah-extreme-eaps-05.txt

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <71ED304A-2E50-11D7-A865-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>, RJ Atkin
son writes:
>
>On Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003, at 15:15 America/Montreal, Steven M. 
>Bellovin wrote:
>> There's nothing at all confusing about those choices...
>
>I beg to differ.
>
>The simple fact that I was confused about the IESG's intent
>with the various boilerplate options is itself an existence
>proof that it IS confusing to a well-intentioned person,
>experienced with IETF processes, who is not *entirely* an
>idiot.
>

"send text".

I'm serious -- the purpose of the first choice is to permit something 
that's more formal than a mailing list post, but where the author
doesn't desire archival status for some reason.  To give one example, 
it might be used for draft documents from some company or other 
standards organization -- they want their final version to be the RFC.

I guess there are two separate issues here.  First, is that status 
useful?  Second, how should things be worded to avoid confusion?  As I 
said, I didn't think it was at all ambiguous, and I'm relatively new to 
the IESG.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)