Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>>>The problem is that anything short of having this be standards-track
>>>means that future standards-track docs _need_ not consider this work at
>>>all. If that's not the goal, than this needs to go a different track.
>>>
>>
>>Jari,
>>
>>Is there some requirement for PS that this document does not meet?
>>
>> Ron
>
>
> IMO, PS would require a much more complete description of the specific
> changes to RFCs 792 and 1122.
Could you describe those changes? Maybe we can make them.
Ron
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
