On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:48 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12-Dec-24 02:27, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > On 2024-12-11, at 13:56, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > >> > >> For what it's worth, I have far less of a problem with IANA assignments to > >> drafts than I do with drafts not being considered working documents. > > > > I believe the magical solution to all this is: > > > > Make no changes. > > > > The way things are arranged here kind of works, even if ugly in come > > corners, and nobody has yet come up with a proposed change that would > > actually improve the outcome. > > I believe that's correct (and I suspect that Mike StJohns's description is > pretty much accurate) but the fact remains that "the way things are arranged > here" is *different* from what is described in our founding process document. > And it's just weird that we don't update that document to formally permit > what we actually do.
I think this is built around a misunderstanding of early assignment. Or maybe I misunderstand. Early assignment happens when changes to the wireformat would be deeply unlucky, but the text may still be developed. And so having the pointer to an I-D that is going through the process to become an RFC is fine. > > See > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/XJk2nBsWS08hth8FBl0eaQOe7m8/ > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list -- s...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to saag-le...@ietf.org -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
