1 / 7

RFC Primary Marking

RFC Primary Marking. Allison Mankin newtrk IETF-59. Issue. Informational and Experimental RFCs of non-IETF or non-WG origin are sources of confusion. Documents very similar to IETF products are the most obvious case http: //ww w.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.dnpn. RFC Editor Doc Review.

lilliec
Download Presentation

RFC Primary Marking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFC Primary Marking Allison Mankin newtrk IETF-59

  2. Issue • Informational and Experimental RFCs of non-IETF or non-WG origin are sources of confusion. • Documents very similar to IETF products are the most obvious case • http: //ww w.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.dnpn

  3. RFC Editor Doc Review • RFC 2026 states that the IESG reviews only ensure they are not overlapping or “inimical” to IETF efforts. • Currently IESG does full technical review for this purpose.

  4. IESG Review – New Look • IESG has just re-visited RFC 2026 words. • Only light review. • Internal label (secondary marker) planned. • Dialogue with RFC Editor just started. • Harald will speak to this at plenary.

  5. IESG Marker • Secondary marker – a text added by the IESG (not these words, but will be like): • Document not IETF document, and was not reviewed for IETF publication…etc. • Document not an IETF document, though it was considered once by an IETF WG. It was not reviewed for IETF publication… etc.

  6. Primary Marker • Suggested language for charter – Development of a primary marker, such as a series label or sub-label, such that documents not originating from the IETF are clearly distinguished from those that do.

  7. Primary Marker (proposal to be) • Secondary markers limited. Example complications: • Implementers love headers, state diagrams…who reads the front matter? • RFI’s go by RFC number. • A primary marker is an RFC label. • A new series structure will be proposed. • Something like: • Non-IETF series – Independent.

More Related