As I mentioned, I do not have a strong position but I think that is important to have the record of why we are changing this.
It could be something very simply in the intro of the current document, an appendix or it could be a separate one. -as On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 16:02 Samuel Weiler <[email protected]> wrote: > > We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document, > > but then noticed that this is an informational document and its > > attempting to update a standards track RFC > > Changing the "intended status" of a doc seems easier than spinning a new > one. In any case, I would prefer to see the change and the context for it > kept together. > > Also, both/either document would benefit from a more meaningful abstract > and intro. At the very least, briefly explain _what_ is being changed. > (The abstract and intro of the current WG doc hint at "why", but still > don't say "what". The new doc does neither.) > > -- Sam > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
