[rfc-i] RFC Standard Process question

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 7 09:03:49 PDT 2004

Aaron Falk wrote:

> ...
> So, it appears to me (not in any RFC Editor capacity) that removing 
> non-implemented options is part of going from Proposed to Draft and, so, 
> doesn't push you back to the start.  However, it appears to be a 
> judgment call _on the part of the IESG_ as to whether the changes are 
> significant enough.

Thanks for the feedback. In this case however, we're not talking about 
about non-implemented features, but of features that *currently* have a 
set of interoperability issues that some of us would prefer to fix in a 
separate spec (allowing the base spec to progress more quickly).

> Now, speaking for the RFC Editor, since this is a standards process 
> question, not an RFC publication question, rfc-i is the wrong list.  I'd 
> suggest addressing the IESG directly and cc'ing the IETF general list or 
> possibly the newtrk list (since they are contemplating changes to the 
> process).

Will do, thanks.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list