Bruce Lilly wrote: >> Date: 2005-07-06 16:16 >> From: Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> > ... >>However, I'm not at all in favor of requirements to IDs that are added >>ad-hoc; until this actually makes it into an RFC as a formal >>requirement, it won't be in the word template I manage. > > I wouldn't call it ad-hoc; it's part of an IESG-generated document on > the official IETF web site, Which, as far as process is concerned, isn't quite worth the disk space it occupies ;-) > and it also has been documented for quite > some time in the draft successor to RFC 2223 also known as > instructions2authors. 2223bis is still an ID. Until it's an RFC, this is just a *proposed* change to process, and should be treated as such. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf