On Popularity versus Quality
draft-cridland-rfc-labels-00
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dave Cridland | ||
| Last updated | 2014-03-07 (latest revision 2013-09-03) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of
the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cridland-rfc-labels-00.txt
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-cridland-rfc-labels-00.txt
Abstract
Any RFC is typically seen as having the approval of the IETF community; Standards Track documents even more so. This document explores the distinction between approval based on specification quality, and approval based on high deployment.
Authors
Dave Cridland (dcridland@arcode.com)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)