Re: disposition of draft-ietf-http-* internet drafts

Keith Moore wrote:
> > Yes and no.  The applicability statement needs to be revised.  But the
> > real problem IMO is that state-man-mec is caught in IESG process hell,
> > with some current IESG members unhappy with wording that was accepted by
> > former IESG members.
> I don't think this is an accurate description of the problem.

Fair enough.  I'd really like to understand.  What *is* the problem that
prevents an I-D that was last-called before July, 1998, from advancing
to RFC status or being dropped outright?

Dave Kristol

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 07:29:01 UTC