On a procedural point:
On 2008-03-19 04:13, Charles Lindsey wrote:
But RFC2045 is a Draft Standard, and
it is entirely outside the remit of the EAI WG to attempt to change what is
in a Draft Standard.
This draft does lack a couple of headers:
Updates: 2045 (if approved)
Intended status: Experimental
and equivalent text in its Abstract.
I'd be very surprised if EAI didn't need to update a whole bunch
of earlier standards. The idea of Experimental RFCs updating
standards-track RFCs is a tricky one though. It can't reasonably
be avoided in some cases, but it seems like something that should
be very carefully considered by the IESG, to check operational
University of Auckland
IETF mailing list