[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Revisions to RFC 4005

Alan DeKok writes...

>   That's more work.  Do we have an editor for that document, or
> someone willing to shepherd it?

I don't know.  We should probably talk to the DIME WG chairs to see if this
could be wrapped into a revision document they are already working on.

> Is the WG against the idea of having suggested practices updating 
> holes in previous specs?

It might also meet resistance at the IESG, as a proposed BCP document
attempting to Update a Proposed Standard document, regardless of what the
RADEXT WG feels.  Generally speaking this is not permissible.  That's why we
needed to make the Issues and Fixes draft a Standards Track document.




--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>