--On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 13:33:36 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward
looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our
processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise
them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit!
I can buy this argument, but note that it is at least a clarification
if not an actual update to RFC 2026. And the notion of a withdrawn RFC
is new. So we have to be very clear about that.
There should be no reason to *withdraw* ("unpublish") the RFC, as I said in
my previous mail. And the status for a superseded RFC is pretty clear: It's
called "Historic".
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
