Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
>> to indicate
>> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
>>
>> So, in text that previously read "not-example.com", it might read
>> "not-example.com [*]",
>> with the references section having "[*] Note - non-RFC2606 examples
>> used. Please read RFC2606."
>>
>> Something along those lines, should hopefully be enough to keep both
>> sides happy, and resolve the DISCUSS,
>> and hopefully both set a suitable precedent *and* make moot the appeal.
>>
>
> I think this sounds like a good compromise, and it does improve the
> document quality IMHO. John, would this be an acceptable addition to
> the document?
I do not want a compromise on whether or not the IESG documents the
rules it's enforcing.
BEFORE trying to enforce them "consistently", and using the
"consistency" as an argument that what looks like a recommendation in a
BCP is "really" a MUST.
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
