From the RFC Editor perspective, I’m hoping that this document will touch on more than just the IETF stream. Both the IAB and the Independent Submissions streams (but not the IRTF stream) contain Updates/Obsoletes. Not many, but they do exist and should be accounted for.
-Heather
On September 15, 2016 at 9:11:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern (jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: As the draft is probably about IETF process, not RFC Editor rules, I
would think that ietf@xxxxxxxx would be the venue for discussing the
draft, unless Jari thinks it needs a separate list (which I doubt).
Yours,
Joel
On 9/15/16 8:58 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I noticed that as well in the announcement. The proper place to discuss
> this draft is most probably rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> .
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> > Note to Readers
> >
> > This draft should be discussed on the wgchairs mailing list [1].
>
> Um, no. That's a closed list.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
>
--
Heather Flanagan
RFC Series Editor |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg