Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>     > For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in
>     > staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using
>     > the RFC series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF
>     > over the RFC series).
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting creating a new document
> series for use by the IETF, for its standards documents?  If so, I don't
> recall this possibility being discussed before, although I can't believe it
> hasn't been suggested at some point.

Well, there's STDs. Do you also want PSTD and DSTD numbers?

> Such a change would be acceptable to me - although it might take a while to
> build up the distribution system that already exists for RFCs.

Using STD/DSTD/PSTD would just be additional numbers.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqqbLsACgkQE5f5cImnZrv5WwCg58JSLLQTkOPBJWZzkNx8HyDJ
ahkAn2O/m6u2U6jUTxybaR1myDUEwscm
=2c62
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]