[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Apr 9 08:44:44 PDT 2009
On 9 apr 2009, at 16:22, Bob Braden wrote:
>>> It seems that this issue has converged to using
> And the (present) RFC Editors think this is a bad idea. The
> "rfc<no>" part is OK; we could see no strong argument one way or the
> other on that. But prescribing the subdirectory name to be "status"
> is a bad idea. The word "status" is too overloaded already. The
> directory will contain status (e.g., Proposed Standard) but it will
> also contain several other classes of meta-data. Other suggestions:
> "meta" or "info".
Understood, would be more in line with the indicating the more general
gist without micromanaging.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090409/af320166/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest