Hi Leif,
thanks for pointing it out - what I meant to say was informational vs.
standards track (not WG vs. non-WG).
Cheers,
Max
On 11/11/14, 1:30 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
On 2014-11-11 23:37, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
Hi all,
one option that was not voted on today (and that I would like the WG to
consider) is the possibility for this work to be an Informational RFC rather
than a WG item.
Since we don't have a document yet it may be a bit premature to talk
about what status to give it.
I'll only note that informational, experimental or standards track
are all perfectly reasonable both as WG or as individual submissions.
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
