lconroy wrote:
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?
That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not going to
survive the I-D to RFC process anyway.
But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf