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