-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <[email protected] il.com>, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> writes
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 9:15?PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The I-D does not actually need to be published. It is enough >> that it be >> enough to provide a basis for deprecating ARC. > >> are sufficiently archival to be available for later reference. > > Procedurally, I agree. But it seems from Trent's comments that the > industry would actually benefit from an assertion, in the form of > an RFC, that there's nothing left of value down that road. If > that's true, I think it's worth the cost. I note that there is a draft on Experimental RFCs which says that experiments should be time limited and a results document should be published ... neither should is in capitals though. So not only industry, but also IETF process would benefit from producing a document that concludes the experiment (and says how it failed) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp/ - -- richard writing to inform and not as company policy "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBaYo2CWHfC/FfW545EQKbBACggSuYcRNjelwIXvtmCbNsmQQDOpcAn3U6 cMro2p4hfmi+JOiVHVTUIi8d =cyn1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
