RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs

An informational RFC certainly meets these requirements.


I don't think we want to say that any info RFC qualifies

so how do we say just what we want to say and no more?

Scott

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Kurt D. Zeilenga Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, RJ Atkinson Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Brian E Carpenter Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Scott Bradner Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Kurt D. Zeilenga Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Keith Moore RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Christian Huitema RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Scott Bradner <= RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Harald Alvestrand RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Graham Klyne Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Brian E Carpenter Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, RJ Atkinson Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, John Stracke Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Scott Bradner Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Kurt D. Zeilenga RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs, Christian Huitema