- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 22:40:08 -0500
- To: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- cc: Koen Holtman <Koen.Holtman@cern.ch>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Faltstrom'" <paf@swip.net>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> When functionality is desired, and no other good alternative > shows its head, our obligation is to move forward with the > one that is at hand. our obligation is to follow the process rules. and (not specifically referring to this proposal) just because we don't have a good idea about how to do so something doesn't mean that we need to bless a bad idea for how to do it. sometimes we need to say "we don't think this is good enough yet, but here's the best thing we have come up with". but if it doesn't meet the criteria for standards-track, it can't get published as standards-track. > "proposed" means proposed. "proposed" means what it says in RFC 2026. Keith
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 22:51:27 UTC