Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 3464 is already DS according to the RFC Index.
Good, the process works, unlike my memory: I meant 3834,
a few days ago I wrote 3864 instead of 3834 on another
list, so that's the third attempt: 3834.
[interoperability report]
> if {all mandatory and optional features shown to
> interoperate}
> then {send a request to reclassify RFC 2195 to the IESG}
So far it sounds simple (for the 2195 example). I test it,
thanks for info.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf