Brian E Carpenter wrote: > pretty clearly a cut-and-paste error. I agree that we > can't expect non-participants to correct that error. +1 For a definition of "non-participant" somewhere between "did not yet read RFC 4677" and "did not yet read all RFCs listed in ion-procdoc" (including 3669, I checked that you have it... ;-) [experimental track] > There's nothing new about that phrase; a quick Google > finds usage going back to 1998 at least. My http://purl.net/xyzzy/-a9/%22experimental%20track%22 search found about 120 hits from potential participants. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf