[rfc-i] Substantial revision
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue May 29 11:53:13 PDT 2012
On 5/29/12 12:45 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> Speaking as the chair of the xmpp WG, we *absolutely* created 6122 with the
>> intent that it would have a -bis immediately. This happened roughly at the
>> same time as the formation of the precís WG, and it was the only way we
>> could figure out to move the core XMPP specs forward in the face of known
>> inadequacies of our i18n framework.
> That's a fine reason for a draft, but not an RFC IMO.
Take it up with our ADs, then. At the time, we really needed the XMPPbis
drafts out as RFCs, and this allowed us to decouple that process from fixing
the i18n issues that are strewn throughout all IETF protocols that humans
We would have welcomed this sort of comment at IETF last-call, when it would
have been appropriate. Now it's Monday-morning quarterbacking.
More information about the rfc-interest