>> On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an
>> important term in the current document seems like a better solution.
> If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure.
Well, if the IETF has consensus :) I'm raising the issue during this last call
that "round
Op 17 sep. 2023 om 17:40 heeft Murray S. Kucherawy het
volgende geschreven:
> The reason I'm asking, though, is that we had 7719 in 2015, which was
> replaced by 8499 in 2019, and now this revision. Since we consider RFCs
> expensive to produce, I thought it was a reasonable question to ask.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> Hi Murray!
>>
>> Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
>> nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this parti
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 5:01 AM Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Murray!
>
> Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> > I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously
> > discouraged publishing "living docume
On Sep 16, 2023, at 11:07 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
wrote:
>
> I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously
> discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series.
Is there a better reference to this policy? If the IESG has made a stat
Hi Murray!
Op 17 sep. 2023 om 08:07 heeft Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
het volgende geschreven:
> I thought the IESG (though maybe not this particular one) had previously
> discouraged publishing "living documents" like this one in the RFC series. So
> why aren't we doing this as a wiki pa
