On 2024-12-10, at 13:52, John Mattsson 
<john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org 
<mailto:40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: 
> • Internet-drafts are obviously "permanent and readily available", I don’t 
> see why that is debated. For registries wanting RFCs there is “RFC required”. 
> I am against any registry saying that "permanent and readily available" 
> internet-drafts are NOT OK, but pointing to a website outside of the IETF is…

On 12/10/24, 2:49 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <c...@tzi.org <mailto:c...@tzi.org>> 
wrote:
> This.
> There really can’t be any discussion on the facts here.

Except that the boilerplate in every internet draft says "It is inappropriate 
to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 
'work in progress'" and some people have a problem with using a work in 
progress as the defining reference for an IANA registry. I think the solution 
to that is to fix the boilerplate somehow.




_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org

Reply via email to