[dhcwg] Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection o n draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

That works. Thanks!

On 5/1/25, 10:47 AM, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote:


    Amanda Baber <[email protected]> wrote:
        > For what it’s worth, we don’t have a default set of status field
        > entries to recommend, although this seems like a potentially useful
        > thing to do. 8126bis is asking whether we should 1) define common
        > status field entries that are already in use (“current,” the
        > similar-sounding “active,” “provisional,” etc.) and 2) add to the very
        > brief definitions we already have (“deprecated” and “obsolete”).

    Bernie suggested we just go for creating the new status field, so I've done a
    pull request: https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/pull/54/files

    Please let us know if the text works for IANA.
    Note last instruction: please add status to all the registries.

    --
    Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
               Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]