Hi Scott, On 24.10.25 15:19, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Making a complete list of possible values is likely useful, but how it relates to the initial idea of describing internet drafts in development? I mentioned “Internet Draft”, “In Development” to refer to the internet drafts which are being processed and are under IETF change control (adopted documents). One can instruct DEs to allow ietf namespaces in such documents (even if they are not registered) to avoid change of namespaces only after documents become RFCs and allow registering them in EPP extension registry anyway.In Section 2.2.1, describe the complete set of possible document status values:OLD: The document status ("Informational", "Standards Track", "Other", etc.) of the specification document. For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other". NEW: The document status of the specification document. For RFC documents, the possible set of values includes "Standards Track", "Informational", "Experimental", "Historic", and "BCP" as described in Sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other".
Unfortunately I didn't find any normative resource to such document status but maybe a reference to rfc7221 would work?
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
