[rfc-i] RFC Standard Process question
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 7 09:03:49 PDT 2004
Aaron Falk wrote:
> So, it appears to me (not in any RFC Editor capacity) that removing
> non-implemented options is part of going from Proposed to Draft and, so,
> doesn't push you back to the start. However, it appears to be a
> judgment call _on the part of the IESG_ as to whether the changes are
> significant enough.
Thanks for the feedback. In this case however, we're not talking about
about non-implemented features, but of features that *currently* have a
set of interoperability issues that some of us would prefer to fix in a
separate spec (allowing the base spec to progress more quickly).
> Now, speaking for the RFC Editor, since this is a standards process
> question, not an RFC publication question, rfc-i is the wrong list. I'd
> suggest addressing the IESG directly and cc'ing the IETF general list or
> possibly the newtrk list (since they are contemplating changes to the
Will do, thanks.
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
More information about the rfc-interest