[rfc-i] I-D Boilerplate Question (not related to IPR, promised!)
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 29 16:13:05 PST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
>>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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest