At 10:13 AM +1200 4/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >On 2008-04-18 07:22, Bill McQuillan wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote: > > One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived". > >Yes, it carries unintended semantics. >... > > > I would propose that the two classifications be labeled: "Approved" and >> "Not Yet Approved" with the clear understanding that *both* such types of >> items will be archived so as to be available to the next document update >> process. > >I would simplify that to "Not Approved." The "Yet" also carries >unintended semantics. From what Lisa and Russ said, these minor changes *are* approved: they're just not considered as important as "Approved" ones. The semantics seem silly to me. Even on an RFC with 100 editorial nits and only a dozen significant errata, a developer reading the whole list would not spend more than an hour or two separating the wheat from the chaff. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf