[rfc-i] I-D Boilerplate Question (not related to IPR, promised!)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 14:33:08 PST 2009


On 2009-01-29 04:32, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>
>> But that's for RFCs, not Internet Drafts, right?
> 
> 
> correct... and in all honesty I do not have the immediate answer wrt
> I-Ds...

>From my IESG time, I think the 'Network Working Group' field
is really not very important at the draft stage. It wouldn't do any
harm to recommend using a WG (or RG) name when relevant, but I
don't see it as a big deal. The default must be neutral, however.
These fields matter much more IMHO:

Updates: 4321 (if approved)
Obsoletes: 1234 (if approved)
Intended status: BCP

     Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list