Hi John,
At 03:51 02-06-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
I suggest that it would be useful to add an additional explicit
state category to the the RFC Editor's list, one that would
presumably be handed out of band (although I'd have no objection
to having it automated). The description would read something
like the following:
5. Standards change: When a document has been approved
(via Protocol Action Notice or equivalent) that updates
or obsoletes an existing Standards Track or BCP
document, an erratum entry may be added that points to
the action notice and the approved Internet-Draft. This
is intended to be a short-lived entry, providing
information to the community for important cases during
the period between IESG approval and publication of the
new RFC. These notices are intended to exceptional
circumstances and will be added at the discretion of the
RFC Editor (e.g., in circumstances when it appears that
RFC publication of the new document will be delayed) or
at the request of the IESG or a relevant Area Director.
I suggest a minor change to the last sentence to emphasize the
exceptional circumstances. Instead of "These notices ...":
This state is intended for exceptional circumstances. The erratum
entry will be
added at the discretion of the RFC Editor (e.g., in circumstances
when it appears
that RFC publication of the new document will be delayed) or at
the request of the
IESG or a relevant Area Director.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf