Hi John, At 03:51 02-06-2008, John C Klensin wrote: >I suggest that it would be useful to add an additional explicit >state category to the the RFC Editor's list, one that would >presumably be handed out of band (although I'd have no objection >to having it automated). The description would read something >like the following: > > 5. Standards change: When a document has been approved > (via Protocol Action Notice or equivalent) that updates > or obsoletes an existing Standards Track or BCP > document, an erratum entry may be added that points to > the action notice and the approved Internet-Draft. This > is intended to be a short-lived entry, providing > information to the community for important cases during > the period between IESG approval and publication of the > new RFC. These notices are intended to exceptional > circumstances and will be added at the discretion of the > RFC Editor (e.g., in circumstances when it appears that > RFC publication of the new document will be delayed) or > at the request of the IESG or a relevant Area Director. I suggest a minor change to the last sentence to emphasize the exceptional circumstances. Instead of "These notices ...": This state is intended for exceptional circumstances. The erratum entry will be added at the discretion of the RFC Editor (e.g., in circumstances when it appears that RFC publication of the new document will be delayed) or at the request of the IESG or a relevant Area Director. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf