 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 2009-8-31, at 19:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote: But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs.
Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even from IETF WGs, carry big warnings "THIS IS NOT AN IETF STANDARD."
FWIW, this was exactly what I proposed a while ago. The current way we label RFCs requires folks to understand the intricacies of the different streams. Few in the broader industry do.
Lars
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.