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

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Fri May 29 07:27:10 PDT 2015


I agree with Andrew. Even though I-Ds might be archived on the tools site
or elsewhere, they aren't meant to be permanent documents. I prefer
retaining "work in progress" in references to I-Ds.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20150529/17047257/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list