On 13-May-24 11:13, Scott Bradner wrote:
On May 12, 2024, at 4:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
< snip>
We did, in RFC 2026. This whole discussion is only a gloss on RFC 2026. When the IESG reaches a decision whether to advance a document, they have to judge whether the rules have been followed. I really don't see that the draft changes the rules in any fundamental way. It makes it harder to cite a paywalled draft, which is a good thing, but it doesn't forbid it, which would be self-defeating.
[The RFC 2026 rule is that "open standards" may be referenced, but its definition of "open standards" doesn't mention cost.]
of course, in the days of RFC 2026, you had to pay for essentially all "open standards"
so that was assumed
Indeed. And I'm not against the sort of additional process that Mark's last message suggests, but we should be aware that in the end it will change very little.
Brian
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
