Re: XML Signature is "evil" ;-))

> > When I see an article that refers to "Draft Standard" (capitalised) stage 
> for 
> > a W3C specification, I have to ask if the author understands W3C process.
> 
> On the other hand, if you know the first thing about IETF process then you
> know that "Draft Standard" is the step after "Proposed Standard" and before
> "Standard", and it's a lot more official than the word "Draft" makes it 
> sound.


The above was sent to me off list and raises, from my point of view, an issue 
relating to IETF process which I hope isn't too off topic.

Some list members may be aware that a reason W3C issues "Recommendations" 
rather than "Standards" is that W3C is a non-governmental body and, so I 
understand, only inter-governmental bodies have an official right to issue 
"Standards".

What is IETF's viewpoint on issuing "Standards"? Is it, implicitly, claiming 
that an IETF "Standard" is legitimately so named?

I am not trying to start a flame war or any such thing. But it does seem 
potentially confusing that IETF issues "Standards", given what I understand 
to be the status of IETF.

Andrew Watt