Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFC<n>:

   -<a>
   -<b>
   -<c>
   - ...



wfm.


and seems very reasonable to me as well...

Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, (continued) Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Russ Housley Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Dave CROCKER Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Dave CROCKER Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Russ Housley Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Spencer Dawkins Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, ned+ietf Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Spencer Dawkins Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Dave CROCKER Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Russ Housley Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Dave CROCKER Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Spencer Dawkins <= Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Eric Burger Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Peter Saint-Andre Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Martin Rex Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Dave CROCKER Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization, Martin Rex