On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I thought the solution in the DLV case was useful, albeit not terribly so -
publish a "specification" that didn't really specify anything, but got the
codepoint, and then follow up with the real specification as an ind-sub when
that was appropriate.
FWIW, both 4431 and 5074 were AD-sponsored ("IETF Stream"). We had
previously attempted to publish 4431 as an independent submission,
with poor results.
Don't know if this particular delay mechanism was involved there, though.
It was not. There were a number of delays, primarily in the RFC
Editor's slow review of the independent submission, but the IETF
didn't have any competing technology in the pipeline, so this
mechanism was never invoked. Which makes this a poor example of how
to proceed in the case of competing technologies.
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf