"RFC" structure (was Re: Initial Structure )

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Graham Barr <[email protected]> whispered:
| Yes IETF seem to go through I-D, RFC, STD but a published RFC is really
| treated like a standard.
| 
| ie The working groups discuss I-D (Internet Drafts) which are published
| as RFCs when the WG agrees on them.
| 
| So as not to confuse people that our RF is the same as IETFs RFC I think
| we should use a different term. Maybe RFD (Request For Discussion)

I think this is an excellent idea that we should use.
Let me put forth these names:

IR - "Implementation Request"
   This would be the initial idea, be it that we should get rid of $
   or that we should add native support for HTTP/FTP/whatever to open().

IRD - "Implementation Request for Discussion"
    This would be what the WG returns as their recommendation for
    implementation.  It would have whatever level of detail was decided on
    and what options were discussed.  This would be fed back to the main
    group/Larry/whoever for open comments and final approval.

IS - "Implementation Standard"
   This is what Larry/Gnat/whoever returns as how the feature should be
   implemented.  It is different from the IRD in that it gives the 
   definitive answer, it removes the other options.  It is what we could
   use to define the tests against.

-spp