Re: Message Header Field Registry

 Aren't experimental RFCs last-called?


they don't have to be.  IESG can ask for one, but it's not required.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, (continued) RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Jeff Stephenson RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Graham Klyne Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Keith Moore Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Charles Lindsey RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Jacob Palme Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Charles Lindsey Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Charles Lindsey Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Graham Klyne Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Charles Lindsey Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Graham Klyne Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Keith Moore <= RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Jeff Stephenson RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Jeff Stephenson RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Graham Klyne RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Jeff Stephenson RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal, Graham Klyne

Re: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal