Sharon, thanks for the comment. I'll change it to RFC XXXX.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Sharon Chisholm > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:58 PM > To: syslog > Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ... > > > > </Rainer> > > > > b) RFC9999 I find confusing, irritating even; normative > > references to I-Ds is > > elementary RFC-editing, they deal with it every day; put in > > the I-D name and > > trust the editor to sort it out:-) > > As far as I have been told, the way it currently is is the > way to do it. > Once it is through the last call, *I* will get a last editing > chance at > which time this is replaced by the actual RFC 1. As far as > I've been told, a > normative RFC must only refer to other RFCs, not I-Ds. If it > does, it won't > be normative until the other I-D has become an RFC. > </Rainer> > > No, more typically one would say RFCXXXX with a note that the > RFC editor > should fill this in when the number is available. RFC9999 is much less > likely to be caught before publication. > > Sharon > _______________________________________________ > Syslog-sec mailing list > Syslog-sec@www.employees.org > http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec > _______________________________________________ Syslog-sec mailing list Syslog-sec@www.employees.org http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
