On 2008-04-18 07:22, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> 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.
I'm not convinced by any of the arguments against 3 categories.
There are proposed errata that are simply wrong, and there's no
reason to keep them around as potential future distractions.
So I think the "Rejected" category is useful.
> One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived".
Yes, it carries unintended semantics.
...
> 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.
I would simplify that to "Not Approved." The "Yet" also carries
unintended semantics.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
