06.04.2011 18:27, Russ Housley wrote:
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about
documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem.
Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in
the hands of the IESG.
Russ,
Hello again. I have another minor comment regarding this document.
4. Downward References Permitted
This section says nothing about references to documents with no status
("pre-IETF" RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be
allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure
will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in
Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool<[email protected]>
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision: 05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change "proposes several changes to the" to
"changes the". }}
The IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
