>> By the nature of e-mail, the recipient of a message already knows who
>> the sender sent it to, since he or she got it. The Received headers go
>> into the message itself, not third party logs.
>
> Mail list archives and mail corpus leaks do expose that to more
> than one recipient.
>I don’t think there is universal agreement with IESG that I-Ds qualify. So
> you might need to talk to your AD ;-).
It would be really good if the IESG could decide on this; IANA registry
requirements shouldn't vary by individual.
___
Uta
Hi all,
On 24 Jan 2019, at 23:41, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> As I have always understood it, "spec required" means a
>published, stable, readily-accessible, etc., specification.
>Not necessarily an RFC but, until the definition of an I-D is
>changed to eliminate all of the "don't
>I don't suppose you guys could look at the "Guidance for Designated
Expert" in the draft and let me know if you have improvements?
It looks fine to me except for the :"recommeneded" typo :)
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
I don't suppose you guys could look at the "Guidance for Designated
Expert" in the draft and let me know if you have improvements?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, January 24, 2019 20:26 + "Salz, Rich"
wrote:
changes the registry criteria to Expert Review
>As I have always understood it, "spec required" means a
published, stable, readily-accessible, etc., specification.
Not necessarily an RFC but, until the definition of an I-D is
changed to eliminate all of the "don't reference except as 'work
in progress'" and "expires in six
--On Thursday, January 24, 2019 20:26 + "Salz, Rich"
wrote:
>>changes the registry criteria to Expert Review so you
>>don't need to
> publish an RFC merely to register a new clause.
>
>
> Spec required, so it's written down somewhere what it means?
> An I-D is sufficient;
