[rfc-i] Updating one paragraph of RFC 2026 to reflect current practice

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri May 29 01:33:19 PDT 2015


On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:19:03PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> This is short and to the point. If the community agrees, we can probably get this done easily.

I do not agree.  The reason I don't is because an I-D that doesn't
result in an RFC is, IMO, still a work in progress; it's just one that
didn't actually complete.  There is nothing unusual about this notion.
My PhD thesis was a work in progress when I abandoned it.  I have seen
building sites that are clearly an abandoned work in progress.  These
are not complete works.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list