Randy Presuhn wrote:
> On the initial registry, I think there is rough consensus to:
> 1) recommend publication as an Informational RFC
> 2) add a note to the RFC editor at the beginning of
> section 3, requesting that the rest of that section
> be deleted, and replaced with a note saying where the
> current registry is to be found (or a pointer to
> the registry RFC, which in turn says where the registry
> is)
Apparently there's a new language tag "rup", and so the state
"waiting for AD go-ahead" substate "revised ID needed" could
be used to 1) add "rup", 2) move chapter 3 to appendix A, 3)
fix ToC reflecting this, 4) add a dummy link to the registry,
5) add a RfC-editor note to remove appendix A and to fix this
dummy link as soon as the real IANA registry is available.
John also proposed to get rid of the [record-jar] reference
in this informational RfC.
> 2) obsoletes 3066.
[...]
> 2) obsoletes 3066. (see above)
Above all "obsoletes 3066"...
> I'm not going to ask whether we're all happy with this
> recommendation,
...the form apparently forces the AD to recommend a status.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.