Brian, > On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Everybody's correct, IMHO. We need to have a general explanation of > what "updates" (and "obsoletes", but that's simpler) means that will > apply to all RFCs, and we need specific guidance within the standards > track in particular. I agree. However, it would be confusing if the streams adopted different definitions of what update and obsolete means. Bob > > Regards > Brian > > On 16/09/2016 05:56, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I agree that it would be good if those streams paid attention to the >> discussion. It would be particularly good if they made the same choices >> about meaning. >> But due to our history, it seems to me that the decision to do that is >> up to each stream. And thus the IETF having the discussion is helpful. >> I would hope that if the IAB or IRTF (or ISE) have observations about >> the approaches, the IETF would pay attention to that. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 9/15/16 1:49 PM, Heather Flanagan wrote: >>> 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 <mailto: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 GPGMail