> On Nov 7, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > On the flipside, I don't see what value they add; the ones that gain > consensus will be published in their own right, and the details of the ones > that don't probably aren't interesting to later readers anyway. > > -MSK > > I'm OK either way. Tim, would you care to weigh in as the WG chair? It's an > easy change to make and it would be nice to close out this milestone. What > about demoting the I-D citations to an Appendix?
Not as a WG Chair (as I don't think that matters here), but IMO going with Murray's suggestion is wise. The idea of moving the I-D citations to an Appendix is immediately appealing, but I think in the future such an Appendix will just cause confusion. =- Tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
