On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.
For the crowd watching who were curious, but not curious enough to
bother looking, RFC1945 (HTTP/1.0), which of course is NOT the
original HTTP spec at all, carries the note:
The IESG has concerns about this protocol, and expects this
document
to be replaced relatively soon by a standards track document.
RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later,
which would appear to be "relatively soon".
Something appears to be wrong with your DNS, so reading your webpages
is somewhat impractical.
FWIW, I reviewed EMSD a little while ago, to see whether there was
anything worth raising for Lemonade, and decided that the IESG note
on that still stands, except more so, as various problems they noted
have become more important as time has passed. [For the crowd, EMSD
is a wireless replacement for the Submission protocol, but does not
support anything but ASCII, has no authentication, and insists on
using its own message format in ASN.1]
But back to your argument, which appears to be that if the RFC editor
function were utterly independent from the IAB/IETF/IESG, your
protocols would have been published without those notes, and without
the review those notes required. Which part is the problem, the
review, or the note attached to the document?
Dave.
--
You see things; and you say "Why?"
But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
