Re: Second Last Call: <draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt> (Web Host Metadata) to Proposed Standard -- feedback

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

 



On 7/13/11 5:35 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Personally, I think Informational is most appropriate (and probably
> easier), but a paragraph or two of context, as well as corresponding
> adjustments, would work as well.

Personally I'm not wedded to Standards Track for this document, and
neither are the authors. I just want to make sure that there's a good
reason to change it from Standards Track to Informational. IMHO "this
document doesn't solve the problem in the most generic way" would
prevent us from publishing a rather large number of specifications on
the Standards Track. There's nothing evil about scoping a document so
that it solves a more particular problem.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]