Informational RFCs have their place. I am not arguing that they do not. This particular subject is perfectly acceptable as an info RFC. However, a long-running trend exists where people publish an info RFC, and then proceed to promote it in a way that implies it's an accepted standard to garner adoption. The OP didn't here, but has done that elsewhere. I know that you know the distinctions between the RFC types, but many don't, and that's the only reason I replied as such. On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 2:20 PM brent saner via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2026, 11:53 Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
For the uninitiated who may misinterpret this :
- RFC10023 is an Informational RFC. - Informational RFCs are NOT internet standards. They are defined in RFC2606 : https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2.2
That's because, loosely, the standards track defines "MUST"s. When definining "protocols" (in the broad sense of the word), informationals define "MAY"s.
Sure, RFC 2549 (RFC 1149, "the pigeon plus QoS one") is "Informational."
But you know what else is?
2818 (HTTPS) 6446 (TLS Extensions) 3849/9637 (IPv6 documentation/example prefixes) 9775 (the IRTF CoC)
and many, many, MANY others.
Currently, 3013 of RFCs are in the Informational status. The only status with more than that is Proposed Standard with 4434 RFCs (there are only 133 Internet Standards and 337 BCPs).
So I wouldn't get too hung up on it being "Informational". It can hold a lot more weight than you give it credit for here. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/ZUHT7EGV...