If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other
RFCs, they could approach the Independent Stream Editor. That sort of
publication is one of the explicit purposes of the Independent Stream.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/4/2019 9:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:44 PM Peter Gutmann <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I actually think it's a pretty good summary, and delivers exactly what's
promised in the title. OTOH I can also see that it's going to get
bikeshedded
to death, and will probably never be editable into a form where
people won't
complain about it no matter how many changes are made.
Alternatively, it'll
end up watered down to a point where no-one can complain any more
but it won't
say anything terribly useful by then.
Perhaps it could be published as is with a comment that it
represents the
opinions of the authors? Although given that it's Informational and not
Standards-track or a BCP, that should be a given anyway.
Actually, no. Most IETF documents, even informational ones, bear a
statement that they have IETF Consensus.
See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3.2.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3..2.1>
-Ekr
Peter.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
