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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 29 16:13:05 PST 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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:

I like recommending - but not requiring - the WG name. People print
these docs out, and it's useful to know what the context of the work is.

No harm if they don't follow it, though.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmCRhEACgkQE5f5cImnZrslHgCeO+S4r+j6ZZ7ZbU1Mo8yM68Y5
iwYAoM7gFRacVOmjtrlqQ9dszAag/Q5W
=D0/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list