Re: <a footnote="proposal">

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:45:21 +0200


From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
cc: lee@sq.com, html-wg@w3.org, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, pflynn@CURIA.UCC.IE,
Subject: Re: <a footnote="proposal">
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:33:31 +0200." <9610171833.ZM26864@grommit.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:45:21 +0200
Message-ID: <9878.845574321@domen.uninett.no>


Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr said:
> I accept that references to drafts are undesirable, but sometimes 
> that is all there is until the draft stabilises and is published in 
> more permanant form. This can work, for example the current 
> definition of MIME registration is draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-04.txt 

touche - however, that didn't become "the rule" before it was approved
by the IESG, after which change of content is not allowed.
The fact that the RFC Editor has a 3-month backlog is a real problem,
but the text should be completely stable now.
(The RFC-Editor fixes pointers between internet-drafts that are handed
to him at the same time, so that they refer to the RFCs when the set
is published, BTW)

                   Harald A