----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Li" <[email protected]>
To: "RJ Atkinson" <[email protected]>
Cc: "IRTF Routing RG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 7:31 PM
> > IRTF process rules require that ALL documents
> > published via the IRTF stream include that statement.
> > It is just part of the standard IRTF boilerplate.
>
>
> To be more specific, please see RFC 5743, section 2.1.
which says
' o There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in the
introduction) describing the level of support for publication.
Example text might read: "this document represents the consensus
of the FOOBAR RG" or "the views in this document were considered
controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that
the document should still be published". '
I think it clear that the ILNP specs do not represent the consensus of
the FOOBAR or any other RG; are they considered controversial, or
something in-between?
Tom Petch
>
> Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
