Re: RFC Editor and IESG DNP requests

[Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>]

hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:
> 
>  There is evidence in RFPs and marketing dross not only that there
> are people who don't understand the distinction, but that there are
> people who are intentionally blurring the distinction.
> 

Ted-

This whole discussion about process and policy changes is motivated by
IESG concern that grave damage can be caused by marketing people
playing fast and loose with RFC numbers.  It would be a good thing,
IMO, to have a clearly articulated rationale of the risks associated
with this behavior.  How widespread is it?  How much should our
process accomodate people who treat allocation of an RFC number as
convocation of standard status?

Also, I'd like to extend an invitation to the IESG, or anyone else for
that matter, to forward to the RFC Editor specifics of where this has
occurred and the outcome.  I believe the ramifications are easier to
understand in the specific, rather than the general.

--aaron (speaking for aaron)