Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec dot com> wrote:
My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that > have not received any negative comments, and thus release the > documents in the RFC Editor queue. Then, the Trust should put forward > alternative text for the sections that have received negative > comments, starting another review period.
So there will likely be yet another revision of the TLP text? That means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to add another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will endure another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date. --Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14http://www.ewellic.orghttp://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf