At Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:35:44 +0000,
Evan Hunt <> wrote:

> > At Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:46:29 -0400,
> > tjw ietf <> wrote:
> >
> > > What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people
> > > taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"?
> >
> > I'm not sure how to interpret it (not even sure if it's a question to
> > me)...
> I suspect Tim meant to type "What is worse: An 'informational' document
> being used as standard, or people taking a submitted (expired) draft as
> 'standard'?"

Ah, okay, it makes sense, thanks.  (Correcting this was far beyond my
ability of dealing with the language of English:-).  I still don't
know if it was meant to be a counter argument to my previous message
or an unrelated followup, but in any case that's a different topic
than my main concern.  This is much closer to the point:

> ECS, though, was published before it was fully cooked, and continuing to
> iterate and update the drafts would've been better.

and, at least in retrospect, my observation was that the intended
informational status was (ab)used to have this result, and IMO we
should be careful not to repeat it.

JINMEI, Tatuya

DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to