The only thing I can dream up (without an example) is that the submitting organization’s version of something and the IETF’s version end up diverging, and the submitting organization doesn’t like that. To wit, the submitting organization wanted the added credibility of the “RFC” label without any substantive changes to the material. But that strikes me as a failure of due diligence more than anything. Caveat emptor. From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam@xxxxxxxxx] That is why I really want to see a specific example of harm (which I note SM has refused to do). This is the sort of case where it is very easy to make the wrong decision if people are allowed to waffle on about what they imagine to be high principle when the rules were made the way they are to support important real world requirements. If we are to discuss this further, I want to see an example. <eom> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is. _______________________________________________
|
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf