On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think that only "Approved" and "Archived" are required.
Approved is correctly for implementors to correct problems in the
specification.
Everything else is for a working group to consider when the RFC is
revised.
I believe that this is a good way to go.
One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived". It merely describes
the mechanism to be used. (BTW, I hope that Approved Errata will also be
archived!)
"Archiving", IMO, implies "saving something valuable". Unfortunately, it
doesn't distinguish between items that are of value to be considered in the
next update discussion and items that may be of value to current
implementors.
I would propose that the two classifications be labeled: "Approved" and
"Not Yet Approved" with the clear understanding that *both* such types of
items will be archived so as to be available to the next document update
process.
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf