On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jul 2018, at 13:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> >>> Finally, this purports to update RFC7538 which is Informational.
> >>
> >> That's a good point. The WG draft that led to RFC 7538 was marked as
> >> Informational for its entire
Michael StJohns writes:
> I strongly object to the publication of this document as a Standards Track
> document.
I'll catch up on the rest of the thread later tonight (I've been gone),
but I agree with MSJ here: it should be informational; it's not a
protocol.
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
On 7/10/2018 12:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:35, Michael StJohns wrote:
And as you may have guessed I object to the publication of this
document on the basis of quality for all the reasons previously
stated. This version of the document is actually in worse shape than
On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:35, Michael StJohns wrote:
And as you may have guessed I object to the publication of this
document on the basis of quality for all the reasons previously
stated. This version of the document is actually in worse shape than
the one that failed last call back in October.
