> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of S
> Moonesamy
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:55 AM
> To: Ned Freed; John C Klensin
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [yam] Updating multipart/report
>
> One of the questions when advancing documents along the Standards
> Track is whether it makes sense for such a move when there are
> changes that may affect the document status. In this case, the
> alternatives are:
>
> (a) Have a Full Standard and a Proposed Standard document that
> lifts the restriction
I'd be fine with this. We've been doing it that way with the main two mail
documents since RFC282{1,2}.
> "However the WG might reach consensus that certain changes have to be
> done in order to remove restrictions which were proven to be problematic
> in the field, or which restrict evolution of the protocols."
I'm in favour of a charter update that enables this sort of work.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
