Hi, >>> I realized that I hadn't replied to this. Sorry for that. >> >> No problems; we agreed yours was a good idea and just went ahead. >> >>> I see that you have submitted a new version (-05), and the way you have >>> covered the "Expert Review Procedure" and " Preferred Format for the >>> Content Type Field" is what I had in mind, so that is fine. >>> >>> However, as far as I know there is no such thing as "virtual section" in the >>> IETF procedures, so I suggest to remove "virtual". >> >> I don't know, it seems like a good rhetorical device in this context. >> >> Its lack of precedents doesn't bother me; after all, we’re supposed to >> innovate, right? :-)
Sure, but I don't understand the "virtual" thing. If you are going to call something "virtual" I think you need to explain the reasoning. I have authored drafts myself, that add new sections to existing RFCs, and I don't see how the sections added in the core-cf-reg draft are any different :) Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
