An RFC is an RFC when it is an RFC (Was: Question Re: best practices)

[Martin Millnert]

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:39 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 10:13 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > On 2011-May-09 19:00, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> That is a draft, not a real RFC.
> >
> > Ehmmm, from the top of the document:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146
> >
> > 8<=============================================
> > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> > Request for Comments: 6146
> > Category: Standards Track
> > ISSN: 2070-1721
> > =============================================>8
> >

Ted,  you seem to be educating us on three issues:
 1) NAT is bad,
 2) that 6146 is not a standard,
 3) that 6146 is a draft document

re 3: I'm thoroughly confused.  To us not involved in BEHAVE or experts
on IETF process, what makes 6146 not be a proposed standard in the
standards track (it does claim so)?  Ok, there's a link named
"draft-ietf-behave..." on top, but that seems to be the case for other
proposed standards in the standards track by my random testing. The
'draft' in that link text is the only match of the word 'draft' in the
entire RFC, according to my browser.

On 2: do you mean that the standardization has failed to standardize the
protocols involved/proposed?

Best Regards,
Martin