Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian Dickson <briand(_at_)ca(_dot_)afilias(_dot_)info> writes:
Here's my suggestion:
List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
to indicate
that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
So, in text that previously read "not-example.com", it might read
"not-example.com [*]",
with the references section having "[*] Note - non-RFC2606 examples
used. Please read RFC2606."
Something along those lines, should hopefully be enough to keep both
sides happy, and resolve the DISCUSS,
and hopefully both set a suitable precedent *and* make moot the appeal.
I think this sounds like a good compromise, and it does improve the
document quality IMHO. John, would this be an acceptable addition to
the document?
I do not want a compromise on whether or not the IESG documents the
rules it's enforcing.
BEFORE trying to enforce them "consistently", and using the
"consistency" as an argument that what looks like a recommendation in a
BCP is "really" a MUST.
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf