[Top] [All Lists]

Intended status (was: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt)

2005-05-22 23:46:03

Bruce Lilly wrote in <>:
  [intended status]
It is entirely inappropriate to mention it in the draft.
The current version (dated March 25, 2005) of the "Guidelines
to Authors of Internet-Drafts",,
explicitly provides for indicating intended status:
| Indicating what status the document is aimed for is OK, but
| should be done with the words "Intended status: <status>".
It is helpful to reviewers to know what the intended status
is, as considerations apply to Standards Track documents that
do not apply to Experimental documents, and so on.

Some days ago there was a similar discussion about the 3066bis
I-D in LTRU.  Tests with xml2rfc and category="bcp", plus more
creative experiments, had no visible effect on the text output
for an I-D (the RfC output would be of course okay).

So maybe that's a missing feature in xml2rfc 1.29, I copy it
to the xml2rfc list, bye, Frank