Re: Running code, take 2
2012-12-14 06:10:18
to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly
states that the implementation section should be removed from the
document before it is published as RFC.
Formally, we don't want non-permanent stuff in RFCs. And realistically,
even if we had an implementation wiki, it is unlikely to be kept up to
date once the RFC is published.
so, we act on implementation and interoperability data which are not
kept?
randy
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Running code, take 2, (continued)
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2, Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2,
Randy Bush <=
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Running code, take 2, Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2, Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2, Marc Blanchet
|
|
|