[rfc-i] [IAB] Headers and Boilerplates is done.

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Nov 19 13:18:48 PST 2009

Hash: SHA1

Russ Housley wrote:
>> >> Let me rephrase:
>> >>
>> >> My read of the original suggestion was that no consensus discussion
>> >> would occur - that this would be up to the authors/RFC Editor. Because
>> >> this is a substantive change, I disagree with that conclusion.
>> >
>> > WHAT is a substantive change?  Adding the common abbreviations (e.g.,
>> > "IETF") to help outsiders to recognize the stream designation?s  Adding
>> > the word "submission" to "Independent", which in fact brings it more
>> > into line with 4846?  Calling these substantive would seem to me
>> totally
>> > illogical, so I must assume you are referring to some other change as
>> > substantive.  Please explain.
>> Adding the word "submission" to Independent, but not to IAB, IETF, or
>> other streams.
>> That may seem illogical to you, but it's inconsistent and the
>> inconsistency is substantive to me.
> RFC 4844 lists the four RFC streams, and it includes a section on each:
>    5.1.1.  IETF Document Stream
>    5.1.2.  IAB Document Stream
>    5.1.3.  IRTF Document Stream
>    5.1.4.  Independent Submission Stream
> I read Bob's suggestion as alignment with these names.

It's impressive that we've so well coordinated the misuse of the English
language. I defer to alignment with previous misuses.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list