On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/5/2016 12:02 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ...> I personally do not think WG should just *stamp RFC for drafts because > of> business reasons.> > > +1 > > > Agreed, but the WG need not do that. These could be independent > informational docs instead. That's common for de-facto industry standards > already deployed, as long as they don't *interfere* with WG efforts or > undermine the stability of the Internet as a whole. > > That is what was proposed in the original email about the plans the WG should embark upon.
-sam > Joe >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
