Re: [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language
"James Kempf" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <009701c3402a$78060390$ab6015ac@dclkempt40> |
I had an experimental draft returned to me by the IESG several years ago
because it contained excessive standards track language. I would prefer not
to have to go through another round of editing due to IESG comments (if that
is at all possible).
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email protected]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language
> Even though the protocol is not a standard, wouldn't it make the protocol
> clearer?
>
> Eunsoo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:16 PM
> Subject: [Seamoby] [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language
>
>
> > This draft is meant to be an experimental RFC. Therefore, it should not
> use
> > standards language (MUST/SHALL, etc.).
> >
> > jak
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> >
>
>