[rfc-i] reject the past ( was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)

George, Wes wesley.george at twcable.com
Thu Jun 26 09:51:18 PDT 2014

On 6/26/14, 12:30 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3 at gmail.com> wrote:

>The IETF already has bad experience with adopting shiny new
WG] and of course that means they should never, ever do it again, rather
than attempting to use and improve a technology that seems useful.

>Postscript was permitted for a while for the normative
>version of standards until the usual instability of such fancy things
>caused that decision to be backed out.

WG] all that means is that the IETF chose incorrectly, and at some point
in the past was capable of changing when the situation dictated it.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list