- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:31:39 -0700
- To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- cc: uri@w3.org
>A few reasons, including the fact that informational RFCs "don't >count" (except to marketroids who view all RFCs as standards, when >convenient). The IETF has a standards process for many reasons, but one of the main ones is so that people are less likely to be confused over what is and is not considered standardized. A metastandard consisting of various bits that are not at the same level of standardization defeats that purpose. >I disagree that having a metadocument is inappropriate -- we need >one reference point for URIs, and as long as we continue to develop >the space by independant documentation (which does seem to be the >best way to to do it), the simplest, easiest to keep-up-to-date >path is a metaspec. That sounds informational to me. I reference informational RFCs all the time, so I don't see the problem. Cheers, ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 2 September 2000 21:31:49 UTC