RE: Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

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

 



Hi Adrian,
At 23:42 25-04-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hmmm, you can't be sure what order we wrote them. You can only know what order
they are presented in :-)

I like the finesse of the technical argument. :-)

I think you are right. Of course, individuals pushing drafts to the ISE could do
the same thing, but that is probably out of scope for us.

The ISE could even point to your document as useful advice for individuals pushing drafts in the Independent Stream.

Agreed. Some implementations and some interop is undocumented and we have to
take it "on trust".
We should probably say that giving references in support would be highly
desirable.

Yes.  I'll defer to the authors on whether to add text or not.

I think that when we publish our analysis of results, this will either be
replaced with something firmer or moved to historic.

Ok.  That should be a simple matter.

Regards,
-sm




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