Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

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

 



I believe the five-author limit is not as strict:
(see, e.g., RFC6550)

Ulrich

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Actually, as there's already a five-author limit on RFCs, acks are already subject to guidance...

Did rfc2223bis expire? Section 2.12 there.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore [melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 March 2013 16:20
To: Scott Brim
Cc: John C Klensin; dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; ietf
Subject: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections

On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
> subject to IETF guidance.

Excellent.

Melinda




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