[rfc-i] New version of the v2 and v3 examples draft

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 21 07:36:30 PST 2015


On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> OK, it might be correct according to the draft,

It is. That is, Tony is correct and Julian's "No" is wrong.

> but it *is* awful.

And yet you have not proposed anything better...

> Let's find a solution that is less weird. A seriesInfo where "value" is empty doesn't make any sense; it's a hack.

It makes sense and is a hack.

Other designs are welcome. However, before you propose one, remember that you need to change both <front> and <seriesInfo>, and that you need to think about the fact that in references, we know the status of the document, but in Internet Drafts, we don't.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list