On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote: > I think that only "Approved" and "Archived" are required.
> Approved is correctly for implementors to correct problems in the > specification. > Everything else is for a working group to consider when the RFC is > revised. I believe that this is a good way to go. One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived". It merely describes the mechanism to be used. (BTW, I hope that Approved Errata will also be archived!) "Archiving", IMO, implies "saving something valuable". Unfortunately, it doesn't distinguish between items that are of value to be considered in the next update discussion and items that may be of value to current implementors. I would propose that the two classifications be labeled: "Approved" and "Not Yet Approved" with the clear understanding that *both* such types of items will be archived so as to be available to the next document update process. -- Bill McQuillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
