On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:13:53 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote: >� At this point, we get the deadline effect: a > >� work that in reality is a revision has now to meet the "original >� submission" deadline. That's not very fair. In these conditions, there >� should be some kind of automatic exemption, maybe by allowing drafts to >� use an N+1 version number.
well, happily these situations are pretty rare. that means that we probably do not want to create extra procedures for the secretariat to have to mess with. probably the cleanest thing would have been for us to generate new draft names, some time ago. but we really were trying to revise the specifications and it took exactly a week longer than i had hoped... ultimately, my view is that an I-D is supposed to have no real status, so the I-D name is just a name. having the name continue to use a field that refers to a defunct working is certainly a bit odd, but it's not as if it imparts special privilege to the document. It's just a name. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker �a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: �www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
