>> After we've discussed these for a while, I'll batch up the responses >> and send them to him. > >I think these are issues that need to be at least mentioned in the I-D >before we resubmit it. In general, if we get flak in early stages of >the standards process, it's better to fix the document to prevent >getting the same flak when it goes to IESG, when it goes to 'last >call', and finally when we go public. I apologize if my comment made it sound like "we'll discuss it, not make any changes, and I'll pass along a report." I very much would like to make any clarifications needed in the I-D, even if that means another round or two of the I-D. Certainly, if John had some misunderstandings about what the mailserver URL scheme is meant to do (as I believe that he did), other people will have the same misunderstandings and this is a very good time to clarify what we have come to consensus on. --Paul Hoffman --Proper PublishingReceived on Monday, 5 June 1995 23:29:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:30 UTC