At 10:13 AM +1200 4/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-04-18 07:22, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-17, Bob Hinden wrote:
> One quibble that I have is with the word "Archived".
Yes, it carries unintended semantics.
...
> 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.
I would simplify that to "Not Approved." The "Yet" also carries
unintended semantics.
From what Lisa and Russ said, these minor changes *are* approved:
they're just not considered as important as "Approved" ones. The
semantics seem silly to me. Even on an RFC with 100 editorial nits
and only a dozen significant errata, a developer reading the whole
list would not spend more than an hour or two separating the wheat
from the chaff.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf