Alternatives to the RFC++ "Switch Labels" Proposal
draft-klensin-rfcplusplus-alternatives-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-07-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Internet-Draft                                             July 13, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: January 14, 2019

           Alternatives to the RFC++ "Switch Labels" Proposal
               draft-klensin-rfcplusplus-alternatives-00

Abstract

   A BoF, identified as RFC++ and focused on possible changes to the
   identification of a broad range of documents and sources with the
   term "RFC", has been scheduled for IETF 102 and extensively discussed
   on an associated mailing list.  At least based on the BoF proposal,
   the BoF was expected to accept a particular problem description as
   both adequate and sufficiently important to justify changes and then
   to consider one particular proposal.  Mailing list discussions have
   indicated that neither the problem statement nor the proposal are
   without controversy.  An Internet Draft has been posted that
   describes that particular proposal in more detail.  Without
   significant analysis of the problem statement, this draft mentions
   that proposal as a possible member of a family of similar proposals
   and then outlines some other families of proposals for the
   convenience of BoF participants and the community more generally.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Klensin                 Expires January 14, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              RFC Alternatives                   July 2018

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Note in Draft for Initial Version . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Questions about The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.3.  Discussion List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Possibility 1: Remove the "RFC" name and label from non-IETF
       documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Possibility 2: Qualifying Labels Rather than Replacing THem .   3
   4.  Possibility 3: Create and Use More Supplmental Labels,
       Building on STD, BCP, and FYI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Possibility 4: Treat Problem as an Educational One  . . . . .   5
   6.  Possibility 5: The Really Radical Solution  . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Additional Possibilities and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Note in Draft for Initial Version

   This is a very preliminary and hastily-prepared draft, provided in
   the hope of contributing some specific alternatives to the one
   presented in the request for the "The label 'RFC' BOF" at IETF 102,
   now scheduled for 18:10 Montreal time on Monday 16 July 2018.  It is
   also written somewhat more personally than is typical of more mature
   Internet Drafts.  Please forgive typographical errors, poorly-
   constructed sentences, and omissions resulting from the associated
   constraints.

1.2.  Questions about The Problem

   There has been considerable discussion on the RFC++ list
   [RFCplusplus-list] and elsewhere about whether there is actually a
   problem that requires solving and whether, given that any change has

Klensin                 Expires January 14, 2019                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              RFC Alternatives                   July 2018
Show full document text