-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/8/12 2:28 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > On 08/11/12 14:22, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> I suggest an explicit statement such as.. >>> >>> The purpose of this specification is to document existing >>> practice. >>> >>> ..should appear in the abstract and the intoduction. >> ... >>> I wonder if also a note will be necessary to explain the use of >>> the "X-" prefix in light of... >>> >>> 6648 Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in >>> Application Protocols. P. Saint-Andre, D. Crocker, M. >>> Nottingham. June 2012. >> These are, of course, related, and one statement can cover both. >> I can pretty much guarantee you'll get DISCUSSes from the IESG if >> you don't do it. > > Thank you Jeff for reminding me. Forgot to include them. Well, as > we already have PSA's RFC on that (which btw. inspired XFO, both > (comment and reference) have been added to the text of working > copy (released in next version after this week).
I'm happy to look at that text when it is released. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCcCIgACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwkugCfR/41ujZQEe6R1laO/OMRsaD1 QrAAnRSUZkRg4gp5IorUZj9UfyTUq05l =sBSk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
