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

[Cameron Byrne]

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 10:56 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>
>> 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)?
>
> Being a draft does not automatically guarentee it will become a standard.
>  Use it at your own risk.
>
> As for is NAT bad, well I think so - but I would say the same
> for any other proposed standard passed off as a real standard
> regardless if it had to do with NAT or not.
>
> Ted
>


Soo..... These 2 drafts have the same headers, both are proposed
standards, there is no difference in their standings from an IETF
perspective, as far as i know.  I am interested in hearing fact based
pointers on how i should view one as more of a standard than the
other.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6146.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt

Cameron

>  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
>>
>
>