[rfc-i] Referencing Internet Drafts

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 28 19:17:25 PDT 2015


On May 28, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> I have no moral objection to changing this. It's more a procedural
> issue. That language ("work in progress") is defined by RFC 2026. My
> understanding is that to change that language means opening up 2026,
> which has to be done via a standards-track document (informational
> doesn't cut it, and therefore a style guide isn't the place to do it).
> I think that is more appropriate to come out of the community, not
> from the RFC Editor.

The fear of "opening up 2026" should not trump reason. See the next message.

--Paul Hoffman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20150528/11824117/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list