----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody xyzzy.claranet.de>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and
I-Ds
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> So the point was?
>
> The point was to answer Todd's question about those
> "RFCs have had BIS variants" he has seen:
Informal
> names.
>
> As you said you could also pick rfc821ter as part of
> the draft name, the LTRU folks seriously discussed
> 3066ter while working on 3066bis (now 4646), I tried
> to convince Martin to split his "mailto-bis"
into a
> "2368bis" and a later "2368ter",
anybody is free to
> post a draft-name-rfc2821bis-00.txt (for values of
> name != klensin), and nothing of this has anything
> to do with modifying the content of published RFCs.
>
> Published RFCs are frozen forever, only the status on
> the cover page might change. Apparently Todd didn't
> know / believe this.
I just wasnt sure it had always been adhered to was all. The
text saying so
is pretty clear.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
