RFC Publication of Errata of Standards Track Documents Considered Harmful
draft-klensin-newtrk-8540style-harmful-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. John C. Klensin | ||
| Last updated | 2019-12-09 (Latest revision 2019-06-07) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
There appear to be some recent trends in the IETF, involving both published documents and proposals, to use Informational Documents to effectively update Standards Track ones, presenting documents as normative while avoiding the requirements for a higher level of community review and consensus and relationship tracking that would be required, in practice, for Standards Track updates RFC 4460, titled "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Specification Errata and Issues" and RFC 8540, titled "Stream Control Transmission Protocol: Errata and Issues in RFC 4960", were published as Informational documents although their clear intent is to update, or posit alternatives to some of the provisions of, RFcs 2960 and 4960 respectively. This critique suggests that it is undesirable for the IETF to publish documents of that type and form, explains the reasons, and identifies several alternatives.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)