RE: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>]

Pekka writes:
> 
> I don't think I've seen any answer from the Powers that Be on whether 
> RFC2026 is still a "good enough" boilerplate esp. for old work.
> 
> Please comment on that.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:19:21 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
> To: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)
> 
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > I assume most of you saw this message on ietf-announce.
> > But since it's especially important to the WG chairs, I'm forwarding it to 
> > you directly.
> 
> One critical question: are boilerplates based on RFC2026 still OK?
> 
> I mean, there are a lot of drafts, work-in-progress, which have been
> created with old tools supporting RFC2026 only, and changing the tools
> during the process could take a bit of time..
> 

My personal opinion is that I would certainly encourage that every new 
revision of an I-D switches to the new boiler-plate as per RFC3667/8.

Bert