Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include
the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an
RFC is forever.
However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and
that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may
vary.
Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on
approval)
within each draft?
atb,
Lawrence
On 15 Jan 2007, at 23:35, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its
"status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be
discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much
success for that.
100% agree. On many of my drafts I put in the abstract what list
comments should be sent to. I also strongly support having the
information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS,
Informational, etc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf